Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> General Board >> Right To Bigotry? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1398825014 Message started by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 12:30pm

Title: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 12:30pm

Attorney-General George Brandis ill-informed on people's 'right to be bigots'

Proposed changes to water down the Racial Discrimination Act have captured the attention of the nation.

Earlier this year federal Attorney-General George Brandis announced plans to repeal section 18C of the Act which makes it unlawful to "offend, insult or humiliate" another person because of their "race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

In a heated exchange in parliament, Senator Nova Peris - the first Indigenous female senator - asked Senator Brandis: "Won't removing 18C facilitate vilification by bigots?"

He responded: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted."...

Causing offence in federal and state laws

There is a range of laws in Australia that stop people saying or communicating things that other people find offensive. Four examples follow:

The Sex Discrimination Act

The Sex Discrimination Act defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated...

...Katherine Gelber, an Associate Professor in public policy from the University of Queensland, tells Fact Check the Racial Hatred Act - which includes section 18C and was incorporated into the original Racial Discrimination Act - was based on sexual harassment law.

Offensive language in public

In the NSW Summary Offences Act section 4A says "a person must not use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or a school". The same Act includes a criminal provision for offensive conduct. Comparable laws are on the books in every Australian state and territory.

The offensive language charge was enforced 5,000 times last year in NSW, according to a recently published article co-authored by Professor Luke McNamara and Dr Julia Quilter from the University of Wollongong's school of law.

The paper says: "In a typical year, NSW police lay more than 5,000 charges for offensive language, and, in addition, issue a similar or larger number of 'on the spot' fines for these crimes."

The law does not define what constitutes "offensive language", and the test is "that of a reasonable man".

Postal service law

The Criminal Code Act prohibits using a postal or similar service in a way that is menacing, harassing or offensive.

It was used in 2011 to convict a NSW man, Man Haron Monis, after he sent letters to parents and relatives of soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan. The letters called one soldier a murderer of civilians, and compared him to a pig and dirty animal.

Section 471.12 of the Act states a person is guilty of an offence if:

"(a) the person uses a postal or similar service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive."
The case went to the High Court, where Monis's barrister argued the Constitution has an implied freedom of communication on government and political matters, and therefore federal parliament had exceeded its power when it passed this section of the criminal code.

The appeal failed. The six High Court judges unanimously agreed the section restricts political communication, but the bench was split on whether it was therefore in conflict with the Constitution.

The chief justice, Robert French, summed up the central question this way: "No Australian parliament can validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about [government and political] matters unless the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government in Australia."

Only three of the six high court judges found section 471.12 was invalid and in the absence of a majority finding, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment reflects that there was debate during the case about how intense the reaction must be to pass the threshold of being "offensive". Justice French said section 471.12 "does not import a requirement that any person was actually offended" because the section is "framed objectively by reference to how 'reasonable persons' would regard the conduct".

The three judges who found the section valid said in a joint judgment that section 471.12 "relates to a degree of offensiveness at the higher end of the spectrum, although not necessarily the most extreme" and involved communication "likely to cause a significant emotional reaction or psychological response". "The former may range from shock through to anger, hate, disgust, resentment or outrage, and the latter may include provocation, anxiety, fearfulness and insecurity,"...

Telecommunications law

There is a similar prohibition on using telecommunications services in an offensive manner.

Section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act says a person is guilty of an offence if:

"(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive."...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/george-brandis-ill-informed-on-right-to-be-bigots/5375302

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Cliff48 on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:19pm

I defend my right to be a bigot. I 100% agree that I am bigoted about some issues.

BUT

That does not give me the right to offend others for my bigoted views.

(I should rename my nick to Closet-Bigot)

:) :)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:36pm

My question is....Do we have Free Speech or don't we?

It's like pregnancy, you can't be a bit pregnant, thus equally, to my mind, we can't have speech that's a bit Free.
It's appears to be more.."Free speech, as long as you only say what I like"

What ever happened to.."I may not like what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"?

Now we appear to have to pander to a lot of namby-pamby very touchy prima donnas.
>:(

WW3-645x285-custom.jpg (50 KB | 89 )

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Honky on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:01pm

I'm disappointed that this is even an issue. I thought (hoped) that people would be smart enough to realise that you can't enforce or regulate peoples opinions. I guess I overestimated my fellow citizens again.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sparky on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:15pm

I watched the same issue raised on Insight last night. They had a Vietnamese comedian on who was a real luvvie. They posted a piece of his stand up act and he did a piece about how he associates white men with pedophiles. It was highly offensive to white males. Because SBS and the ABC stack their audiences no one person thought it was offensive when asked. If the white part of the act was changed to black I'm certain there would have been an outcry. That's the problem for me, all these laws are coming from a white male being the racist.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by King FriYAY II on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:16pm

Bloody Abo's are the biggest racists and bigots in town man!!

::) ::)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sparky on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:17pm

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

Bloody Abo's are the biggest racists and bigots in town man!!

::) ::)

And they get away with it because it's directed at white people.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:26pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Attorney-General George Brandis ill-informed on people's 'right to be bigots'

Dictionary;
bigot = =
1 a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
2 a person who expresses an opinion/view which does not coincide with the opinion/views of Brian_Ross.

n.b.
Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."

Religious bigotry ?

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Quote:

Use children as troops, says cleric
January 18, 2007
SYDNEY'S most influential radical Muslim cleric has been caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah.
Firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool [Australia], delivered the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series being sold in Australia and overseas.
.........Sheik Feiz says in the video.
"We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."
An Australian citizen born in Sydney who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, Sheik Feiz was exposed this week in a British documentary Undercover Mosque.
......"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," he declares in the film, before denouncing "kaffirs" (non-Muslims).
"Kaffir is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt."
......Sheik Feiz - who just two weeks ago said he felt like an "alien" in his own country - leads about 4000 followers through his Global Islamic Youth Centre in Sydney's southwest.
He also accused Australian authorities of being over-zealous in their approach to clerics like him.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21074839-2,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014863.php

It sounds so innocent, when moslems tell you that they want to exercise their 'freedom of religion' - here in Australia !

But this is the 'influence', this is the 'freedom of religion', which moslems would like to make lawful, here in Australia......

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.
Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

ISLAM, in Australia = = OUR TOLERANCE, of religious bigotry, and religious violence, in Australia.

IMAGE...

August 4, 2005
Australian Islamic leader defends jihad
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.
"The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, is Islam."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1430551.htm

+++

Religious bigotry, and moslem crimes of religious violence, are all MADE LAWFUL, by ISLAM itself !

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:30pm

Dictionary;
bigot = =
1 a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
2 a person who expresses an opinion/view which does not coincide with the opinion/views of Brian_Ross.

ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by John Smith on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:33pm

Even Turnbull on Q&A last Monday said that Brandis got this wrong and no one has a right to be a bigot .... it was hillarious watching him trying to defend a position he clearly doesn't agree with ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:40pm

QUESTION;
Does ISLAM have the right to be practised in Australia, when ISLAM promotes religious bigotry and religious violence against those who are not moslems [and against moslems who choose to renounce ISLAM] ?

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

Does ISLAM have the right to be practised in Australia, when religious bigotry, and moslem crimes of religious violence, are all MADE LAWFUL, by ISLAM itself ?

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by King FriYAY II on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 4:00pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

Couldn't be as bad as Hockey when he was trying to defend the no to same sex marriage, he was squirming inside that night. ;D

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 4:30pm

I agree with Sparky, these "laws" are selectively applied. Anyone, especially women(no offense to those here), can say pretty much whatever they like to or about men, anyone can abuse Europeans, anyone can say almost anything about Christians, and no-one bats an eye. We(they) are expected to just cop it on the chin. But say one "wrong" thing about women, any non-European race or culture, or about any other religion and watch out, individuals, groups, politicians and poltroons, they'll all be down your throat or up your fundament before you can say Willy Wombat!
As for that observation about our Indigenous brothers, too flamin' right, they're the most abusive and volubly racist persons you're ever likely to run across. Especially up north, where they make up a significant part of the population, no-one is safe from being "told", long, loud, and loquaciously! :-?
And they're not immune to a little prejudice internally either, my best mate in Darwin was a "stolen generation" guy who was raised in WA. He was originally from Darwin and returned there out of curiosity, only to fall in love with the place and remain. He copped it from all directions, the few remaining red-necks, police, and the local Indig gave him more grief than the rest combined. He was a decent hard working guy. Once they'd identified his "roots" he was swamped with "family" trying to bludge off him. The rest of the local Indig automatically assumed that as he was an Indig himself he would give them everything he had without question, and got violently aggressive when he wouldn't. If he hadn't been such a strong and stubbornly independent sort he would have had to leave, they tried to make his life hell, but he just stuck to his guns, although he pretty much gave up going out at night, he simply got sick of being assaulted and forced to defend himself.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:16pm

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 4:30pm:

You normally post well balanced and thought through posts this is not your best, lots of rationalisations and stero typing. Plenty of people can say they lots of nasty things about Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander very few can say any good most of it comes from a lack of understanding accross al large range of issues. Most couldn't name any of the people yet could rattle off Native American tribe names quite easily. As for the treatment of women not quite as bad as our Aboriginal people but still massive issues across a broad range. It is easy to say white men are being picked on, simply not the case white men are being challenged to change your attitudes so as to live in a more inclusive and secure society. Why does it seams that it is all up to you, put simply white men control most of this society and set the standard. So if everyone else changed the majority of the problem would exist. It is up to us as men regardless of race to understand educate and protect all of our society in a fair and just manor and realise that you might be part of the problem a well the solution.
As black man I put a hand of friendship out to anyone who wants it and will stand up for anyone who is being wronged. I will defend my family and country from anyone who threatens them with all of being, just like you. I don't think many white parents have had to deal with kids coming home from preschool upset because their peers hassled them about their colour.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:46pm

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

No, we don't have the absolute right to free speech. We have the English Common Law right to free expression, with in certain limits.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:03pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:46pm:

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

No, we don't have the absolute right to free speech. We have the English Common Law right to free expression, with in certain limits.

Do you allow or would allow your children to swear at their mother or call her foul names. If you are a good parent I believe you wouldn't allow that I think your answear lies somewhere in there. Or if you like try yelling out bomb next time you're on an airplane. If frees speach was asolute you could see how dangerous good be.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:13pm

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 4:30pm:

   Perhaps a little background will help you to understand why my post may seem a little O.T.T.
   I've recently returned from a decade in Darwin, and the greater part of that time I spent working for the Salvation Army in Emergency Housing and Welfare, and serving as a volunteer too.
   I was put through a lot of training courses by them, including Cultural Sensitivity etc. I associated with Indigenous people almost every single day, even after a the stress and strain of my job lead to a heart problem that forced me to retire from the Sallies employ, and I kept up the volunteering till the week I left. I was friends with a few of them and my job kept me involved in all sorts of their family situations and problems. By the time I left I like to think I had earned their respect, they certainly told me I had.
I was physically assaulted more than once by the drunks among them, I had to fend them off from their own women and children occasionally too. I delivered the baby of a young lady from Elcho Island alone, and helped her deal with the abusive father when he tried to take her new-born in a drunken fury, that got me a few bruises. I can't begin to guess how often I was verbally abused, especially in the early years. I was witness to behaviours that would scare the heck out of you, and others that would sicken and disgust you, and I often got to clean up the mess thus created, of all sorts, that was NOT fun!
I also was a part of a private initiative to try and help locals set up small businesses in Wadeye(pronounced wod-air-yer for some reason), previously known as Pt Keats, just about the single most violent town in Australia. I went there as a part of a group to attempt to do so, we failed by the way, the so-called Elders there basically ripped everything off and either sold or destroyed it.

I believe I am entitled to the opinion I hold, and expressed here, by the simple fact that I've done the hard yards.

I've attached a photo or two of Wadeye, they're real, check them.

Me.jpg (209 KB | 36 )

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:16pm

still figuring how to use img attach, here tho

I obscured the faces and logo's for privacy

I'm the one in the dark shirt and flat brimmed hat by the by.

IMGP0304-1.jpg (30 KB | 43 )

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:18pm

'That'll do, I have more tho

IMGP0319-1.jpg (25 KB | 43 )

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Aussie on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:34pm

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

Cute. Where are the boundaries, if any, freediver.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:39pm

Austranger, you my friend are an absolute minority not to many have tried to fix things most just talk out hand with no real expierience or understanding of their own. You spent a fair share of your life trying to good and achieved a fair amount of good from the accounts you gave earlier. They say expectations always lead to disappointment. You spent a decade in the hope to right 170 odd years of wrong you made inroads but mate it takes time as you know exactly how complex those issues are.
Don't take the path of least resistance now that you done your bit inspire others to continue what you and others before have started.
As I stated in my last I do value your opinion as it is usually well balanced and thoughtfull but this is a powerfull emotional subject that can become very deviciesive quickly.
Ps I live in Darwin and have a fair Idea of all you spoke of and I know it's not all sunshine and lollipops up here.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

There was a bloke who was arrested for sending 'offensive' letters in the mail? Do you think the law was wrong? There was another bloke who was arrested for possessing a magazine, do you think the law was wrong?

Should we allow a Hitler-type person to go around calling upon people to gas Jews? Because its 'freedom of speech' innit?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:05pm

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Thanks mate, and know this, I WISH I was still up there, I hate not being. I love that town, I lived in those Flats opposite Shennanigans on Mitchel st for 8 years, and it was brilliant, apart from all the noise from the Esplanade on Anzac Day etc, it always sounded like WWIII was starting, lol.
I left for family reasons but one day...one day.... I'LL BE BACK! 8-)
PS. I don't believe I'm taking the path of etc, I'm just a realist and don't often sugar-coat my opinions, I don't see the point. I hate what this country has done in the past, to Indig and others too, but you can't change the past and I see no point in whinging about it, but I CAN do something about MY present, and hopefully the future too, so I do/did what I can. I was always taught..Don't talk about it, do it..so that's what I do.
I like to admit to people that I have only ever done the things I've done and am doing for entirely selfish reasons, and that's true.
It makes me feel good about myself, and you can't get more selfish than that, eh?
:D

Have one at the Top End for me, on the Verandah bar, I always used to play in the Sunday Pool comp' there, before it went all trendy. Won it too, a couple of times. ;) Or at the Globies down the road, I played there often too.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

If you are talking about the radical Islamic group that where handing letters to widows of Aussie soldiers at there funerals and at times soon after. Telling them that their husbands were evil men. Dam straight they don't have right to do that it's sick not freedom of speech. There has to rules about how you say things, where, and you have to make a reasonable attempts to articulate your thoughts options and grievances without being offensive.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:20pm

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

If you are talking about the radical Islamic group that where handing letters to widows of Aussie soldiers

It was not a group, but a person who is called Man Monis. Sounds Jewish to me. Latest court documents say that he is is some kind of wizard:

Quote:

His alleged victim, who was 27 at the time, allegedly saw an advertisement for ''Spiritual Consultation'' in a local newspaper and contacted Monis. He told her he was an expert in astrology, numerology, meditation and black magic and advised her to visit his clinic...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/spiritual-healer-man-haron-monis-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-client-20140414-36nbh.html

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

. Dam straight they don't have right to do that it's sick not freedom of speech. There has to rules about how you say things, where, and you have to make a reasonable attempts to articulate your thoughts options and grievances without being offensive.

So you agree that free speech has limits?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:25pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

If you are talking about the radical Islamic group that where handing letters to widows of Aussie soldiers

It was not a group, but a person who is called Man Monis. Sounds Jewish to me. Latest court documents say that he is is some kind of wizard:

Quote:

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

So you agree that free speech has limits?

Absolutely I agree

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:28pm

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/it-was-scary-widow-speaks
I thought I remembered correctly

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:47pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

Cute. Where are the boundaries, if any, freediver.

Section 18C and 18D. Libel/slander laws. Any laws that hold you accountable for your words - eg don't yell fire in a crowded theatre, right to privacy, etc.

Quote:

I have no idea of the details.

Quote:

Should we allow a Hitler-type person to go around calling upon people to gas Jews? Because its 'freedom of speech' innit?

Yes. You cannot actually protect people from this sort of thing. We are a mature, free country and we can handle this debate. If you censor the debate, one day someone like Hitler will start it again, and you won't know what to do. It's like over-protecting your children. We should allow John Laws to say these things, and we should counter him. It is better than quashing him and have another Pauline Hanson elected to Parliament on dog whistles.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:00pm

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

If you are talking about the radical Islamic group that where handing letters to widows of Aussie soldiers at there funerals and at times soon after.

Telling them that their husbands were evil men. Dam straight they don't have right to do that it's sick not freedom of speech.

There has to rules about how you say things, where, and you have to make a reasonable attempts to articulate your thoughts options and grievances without being offensive.

I gotta disagree with you Rubin.

Though the expressed opinions [of those moslems] may be offensive to many Australians, expressing those opinions should not be outlawed, imo.

i.e.
The expressed opinions of 'others' should not be outlawed because those opinions 'offend' our sensibilities.

In the case of those moslems, disrespecting dead soldiers, and disrespecting their sacrifice, surely such opinions should be viewed as a reflection [and not a good one] about 'the character' of those moslems, themselves.

BUT, i do want people like moslems to have the 'opportunity', ~~to tell us~~ to reveal to us what their world view is!

And freedom of speech, which we all have the opportunity to enjoy in a country like Australia, can facilitate our understanding of the world view, of people who are followers of ISLAM !!

But where should the line be drawn, on the limit of freedom of expression ?

Personally, i believe that it should be unlawful [when 'expressing an opinion'], to directly promote and encourage violence against others.

Such people who express such an opinion, should be charged with incitement to violence, and brought to a court of law, imo.

FOR EXAMPLE, IMO, THESE PLACARDS [below] ARE EXPRESSING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE, AND SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION OF 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH', IMO.

IMAGE...

THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

+++

Are forums like this slowly dying?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365893107/5#5

Quote:

this is what i once posted on the ABC Q&A online forum....

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS TYPE OF 'MODERATION' IN A [POLITICAL] FORUM?

One obvious consequence is that ALL DEBATE on a particular issue [on such a forum, within that forum] can be 'guided'.

The debate is 'guided', to the point where only 'acceptable' views, will influence THE DIRECTION OF THE DEBATE.

In other words, what is ostensibly [to an outside observer] an open, online forum, for politial debate, becomes a *pseudo* forum for politial debate.

THE WHOLE POINT OF FREE AND OPEN DEBATE

What the ABC forum MODERATORS are effectively saying is,

"Your point of view is [pick one] untrue/offensive/too contentious. And i won't allow such views to be expressed here."

My argument to the MODERATORS is,
ABC forum MODERATORS may disagree with my opinions, and even say that my opinions are untrue or 'offensive' to some.

But if they feel that, then shouldn't they, or somebody else, be prepared to make that argument, IN THE FORUM, against any points i present?

If i do regard ISLAM as an 'offensive' philosophy, then in a 'free and open' forum, shouldn't i be permitted to express that point of view, and to demonstrate, why i hold that particular view about ISLAM?

And if the detractors [of certain comments i have made] have a legitimate complaint, then let them air it [IN THE FORUM], and have their complaint tested in debate!
.....FOR ALL TO SEE.

Shouldn't the ABC forum MODERATORS allow those people who frequent the ABC forum pages, to decide for themselves if my [or anyone elses] arguments have any merit [or not]?

If what i say is untrue, or ridiculous, that fact, will soon become apparent to everyone, when what i say, is exposed to the light of [widespread] scrutiny.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:03pm

Trouble is that this become open slather the other way when someone says they 'feel' upset etc.

That has become a yardstick for often very violent intrusion by the State into the lives of ordinary people, and thus has become no more than an avenue for abuse in reverse, as well as an avenue for justifying the 'victim mentality' of some - but not ALL equally.

The intrusion into the lives of ordinary people by the State with all its manifest power and without proper reason is precisely the issue here - at what point does the State buggar off and leave people alone?

I can say - without any foundation at all - that the landing of aircraft at my local airstrip 'makes me feel threatened' - does that justify the State attacking and even imprisoning the pilots of those aircraft?

NO - it does not - and the same applies across the board. Unless I DO something to another, I cannot be held liable by law or policy merely on the basis that someone 'feels' I have done something.

This is a serious issue and one that has created the exact Reign of Terror in our society cited by myself and others, and has also lead to the unwarranted and unearned rise of certain demographics at the expense of others, leading to our currently massively divided and hostile between groups stratified society.

ONLY when someone clearly and specifically uses a biased view to attack another person or group can the idea of 'preventing harm' be applied - NEVER on accusation or assumption.

Our legal system is based on the proper dealing of FACTS - not on what people feel.

Otherwise they are simply catering to paranoia, oft-times blatant insanity, and the urge of some to use such nonsense to gain an unfair advantage over someone else - in itself nothing but another form of abuse.

A complex issue and not one amenable to government intervention with its size eighteen jackboots.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:08pm

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like.

"Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

Let me refine that statement slightly, FD.

Freedom of speech means the right - of someone else - to say something that you might not like.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:10pm

I used to believe I was a racist but it was pointed out to me that I am a bigot, using this definition
Quote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

I dont believe in active discrimination against anyone purely on the basis of race, but I do believe there are inherent qualities in specific racial groups or cultures which are superior to others. The current laws are stupid, unworkable and stifle public debate which is the opposite of what we want in a democratic society.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:11pm

I think you are getting the hang of it Yadda.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:13pm

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

I used to believe I was a racist but it was pointed out to me that I am a bigot, using this definition
Quote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

I dont believe in active discrimination against anyone purely on the basis of racegender, colour, or political affiliation, but I do believe there are inherent qualities in specific racial groups or cultures which are superior to others. The current laws are stupid, unworkable and stifle public debate which is the opposite of what we want in a democratic society.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:25pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

I used to believe I was a racist but it was pointed out to me that I am a bigot, using this definition
Quote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

Please dont alter my posts, that is against the rules of the forum.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:33pm

I think people seriously under estimate the power of words. Some ideals are straight out dangerous. They lay platform for action to follow we should encourage dialogues that promote productive inclusive society and discourage those that are designed to undermine us, no matter which way you look at bigotry is there to divide societies and set the conditions for action to follow.
Most conversations has and outcome what outcomes do bigots want and why would we entertain those ideas. I don't get it none of you would allow your kids to call you wife a fat so and so , right? Because it's wrong pure and simply. This our society we don't live like that.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Thoughts?

Cat got your tongue?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:23pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Yep. You have the right to state these views, you also have the right to take the consequences for expressing these views.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:30pm

Often forgotten these days..With rights come responsibilities.

You are free to say what you think/feel/believe.
You must accept responsibility for the results of your free speaking.
   If you speak to incite violence or criminality you must accept that whatever happens consequently is your responsibility, no others. If that is legal prosecution you have no redress, you brought it upon yourself.
   If your speaking causes others to treat you differently or to take action against you then that too is your own responsibility.
   You do not have the right to be heard just because you have the right to speak, you cannot force others to listen.
   If others act incorrectly because you speak then that is a shared responsibility, you cannot escape that by saying it wasn't you who acted.
   If you speak and others take offense it is their responsibility for how they respond, but it is still your responsibility for having spoken, their response does not excuse your speaking.
If you speak insensitively or offensively you cannot blame others for responding inappropriately, the decision to speak thus was yours alone.

   A lot of the problems we face today with bigots, and other extremes of one sort or another is the communication agencies, the media etc, if they chose not to publicise certain things, hate speech, ridicule, incitement of any kind, then these voices would not be heard beyond the immediate area of the speaker, thus lessening the chance of harm.

   I may well not have covered every case or condition but I think I've got across the basics, I hope so anyway.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:34pm

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Yep. You have the right to state these views, you also have the right to take the consequences for expressing these views.

Which, if Abbott has his way, will be?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:36pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:34pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Yep. You have the right to state these views, you also have the right to take the consequences for expressing these views.

Which, if Abbott has his way, will be?

the proposed alteration of the act appears to me to be little more than semantics. It will still be illegal to incite racial hatred.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:37pm

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

I used to believe I was a racist but it was pointed out to me that I am a bigot, using this definition
Quote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

Please dont alter my posts, that is against the rules of the forum.

This is a forum? Ooooh - you are touchy tonight..... I didn't 'alter' your post - I simply added to it to make sense.... and to help you on your road to self-enlightenment...

Hoo-yeah!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:38pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:37pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

I used to believe I was a racist but it was pointed out to me that I am a bigot, using this definition
Quote:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

Please dont alter my posts, that is against the rules of the forum.

This is a forum? Ooooh - you are touchy tonight..... I didn't 'alter' your post - I simply added to it to make sense.... and to help you on your road to self-enlightenment...

Hoo-yeah!

No, you altered my post to include a view i dont hold and didnt express. and yes 2 days without sleep, Im a little grumpy.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:56pm

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:46pm:

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

No, we don't have the absolute right to free speech. We have the English Common Law right to free expression, with in certain limits.

Exactly. The sort of 'free speech' people keep talking about on these forums could only exist under a system of complete anarchy.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:34pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Yep. You have the right to state these views, you also have the right to take the consequences for expressing these views.

Which, if Abbott has his way, will be?

the proposed alteration of the act appears to me to be little more than semantics. It will still be illegal to incite racial hatred.

Not semantics.

Jews are a very small minority in this country.

Abbott wishes to change the test for offensive from what a vilified person from a minority might find vilifying to what a white Christian finds to be vilifying:

Quote:

To be clear, the Abbott government’s proposed legislation really would allow for almost any racist speech you can imagine. Any “public discussion of any political, social, cultural (or) religious” matter will be exempt, no matter how boneheaded, dishonest or odious.

Precisely how it is possible to racially vilify someone without discussing a “social” matter is beyond me. But for all that, Australia will not simply explode in a blaze of white supremacy upon the repeal of these provisions (which is far from inevitable in any case).

Rather, there is something else at stake here that is much bigger than any particular legislative provision. I’m not so much concerned by section 18C or its repeal, but by the mythology on which that repeal is apparently based. Unspoken at the heart of this debate is a contest over the way race relations works in this country – and on whose terms.

That’s what struck me most about the proposed legislation. It’s just so … well, white. In fact it’s probably the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve encountered during my lifetime. It trades on all the assumptions about race that you’re likely to hold if, in your experience, racism is just something that other people complain about.

Subsection (3) – mostly ignored to this point – is perhaps the most subtly revealing. Earlier subsections make it unlawful to do something that is “reasonably likely” to vilify or intimidate someone on the basis of race. But reasonably likely according to whom? Who gets to decide whether something is intimidating or vilifying? Subsection (3) provides the answer.

Whether something is “reasonably likely” to vilify is “to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” it begins. Fair enough. But then it adds in the most pointed way: “not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.” That’s code. It means, not by the standard of whatever racial minority is being vilified. Not the ordinary reasonable wog, gook or sand-black person; the ordinary reasonable Australian. And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly?

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.

Every other race is marked by its difference, by its conspicuousness – by its non-whiteness. White people are not non-Asians or non-blacks. They aren’t “ethnic” as the term is popularly used. If the “ordinary reasonable Australian” has no race, then whether or not we admit it, that person is white by default and brings white standards and experiences to assessing the effects of racist behaviour. Anything else would be too particular.

This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.

I have no doubt the Abbott government doesn’t intend this. It doesn’t need to. That’s the problem. This is just the level of privilege we're dealing with.

This is what happens when protection from racism becomes a gift from the majority rather than a central part of the social pact. It’s what happens when racial minorities are required to be supplicants, whose claims to social equality are subordinate to those of powerful media outlets outraged they might occasionally have to publish an apology.

And it’s what happens when lawmakers and the culturally empowered proceed as though ours is a society without a racial power hierarchy simply because they sit at the top of it...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encountered-20140327-zqnea.html

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Peter Freedman on May 1^st, 2014 at 12:41am

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:30pm:

Sounds pretty good to me. Well put, austranger.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sparky on May 1^st, 2014 at 4:37am

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like. "Right to bigotry" is just a politically incorrect way of espousing freedom of speech.

If you are talking about the radical Islamic group that where handing letters to widows of Aussie soldiers

It was not a group, but a person who is called Man Monis. Sounds Jewish to me. Latest court documents say that he is is some kind of wizard:

Quote:

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

So you agree that free speech has limits?

There were Muslim groups doing that in England and people were convicted for it.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Soren on May 1^st, 2014 at 2:44pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:34pm:

ian wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Yep. You have the right to state these views, you also have the right to take the consequences for expressing these views.

Which, if Abbott has his way, will be?

the proposed alteration of the act appears to me to be little more than semantics. It will still be illegal to incite racial hatred.

Subsection (3) – mostly ignored to this point – is perhaps the most subtly revealing. Earlier subsections make it unlawful to do something that is “reasonably likely” to vilify or intimidate someone on the basis of race. But reasonably likely according to whom? Who gets to decide whether something is intimidating or vilifying? Subsection (3) provides the answer.

Whether something is “reasonably likely” to vilify is “to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” it begins. Fair enough. But then it adds in the most pointed way: “not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.” That’s code. It means, not by the standard of whatever racial minority is being vilified. Not the ordinary reasonable wog, gook or sand-black person; the ordinary reasonable Australian. And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly?

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encounte

This is a very stupid argument from Aly. He is arguing that not privileging any particular sub-section or race is racist.

What he is very stupidly arguing is that whites are racists, no matter what they say or do or what anti-discrimination laws they make as long as they do not expressly privilege non-white - racially privileging other races is the only non-racists way.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Jackness on May 1^st, 2014 at 3:43pm

No amount of laws or policies legislated could eradicate racism and racial discrimination.

It is time Australians start living in the real world and stop pretending that racism isn't going to exist with or without anti-discrimination policies. Racism exists either way.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Jackness on May 1^st, 2014 at 3:44pm

Abolish the Racial Discrimination Act. It's a useless law.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Jackness on May 1^st, 2014 at 4:19pm

A bigot in its true original definition is someone who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. This is the widely accepted definition of bigot until the 90s when blacks, asians, apologetic whites sensationalised the word 'bigot' and falsely defined it exclusively as "a bigot = a racist".

Every one of us has been a bigot at some point in our lives. I am sure every one of us had opposed some opinions and beliefs before.

As a matter of fact, anyone who opposes the Racial Discrimination Act to be repealed/abolished makes him/her a bigot.

So that's why I strongly believe that everyone has the right to be a bigot not only in Australia, but also in other civilised countries. It's a basic human right.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:11pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

[
Not semantics.

Jews are a very small minority in this country.

Abbott wishes to change the test for offensive from what a vilified person from a minority might find vilifying to what a white Christian finds to be vilifying:

I think thats your interpretation, we also have similar state laws in W.A. , there have only been a couple of attempted prosecutions under the act, 1 was against some fellow villifying jews and the other against an aboriginal who racially abused white people.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm

Quote:

So that's why I strongly believe that everyone has the right to be a bigot not only in Australia, but also in other civilised countries. It's a basic human right.

You know when Brandis said: "Everyone have the right to be bigots you know." Really, he was meaning "Everyone have the right to be racist." Because it is on the matter of racial discrimination law. And everyone just assumed he meant the latter. Now, the attorney general cant say the latter, because it would be political suicide.

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness. So, on this regard, I firmly believe it is the wrong time and circumstance to repeal the law. And I believe this is really done to divert the masses away from the real issues such as the economy.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Culture Warrior on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:40pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

[quote]
To be clear, the Abbott government’s proposed legislation really would allow for almost any racist speech you can imagine. Any “public discussion of any political, social, cultural (or) religious” matter will be exempt, no matter how boneheaded, dishonest or odious.

Precisely how it is possible to racially vilify someone without discussing a “social” matter is beyond me. But for all that, Australia will not simply explode in a blaze of white supremacy upon the repeal of these provisions (which is far from inevitable in any case).

Rather, there is something else at stake here that is much bigger than any particular legislative provision. I’m not so much concerned by section 18C or its repeal, but by the mythology on which that repeal is apparently based. Unspoken at the heart of this debate is a contest over the way race relations works in this country – and on whose terms.

That’s what struck me most about the proposed legislation. It’s just so … well, white. In fact it’s probably the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve encountered during my lifetime. It trades on all the assumptions about race that you’re likely to hold if, in your experience, racism is just something that other people complain about.

Subsection (3) – mostly ignored to this point – is perhaps the most subtly revealing. Earlier subsections make it unlawful to do something that is “reasonably likely” to vilify or intimidate someone on the basis of race. But reasonably likely according to whom? Who gets to decide whether something is intimidating or vilifying? Subsection (3) provides the answer.

Whether something is “reasonably likely” to vilify is “to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” it begins. Fair enough. But then it adds in the most pointed way: “not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.” That’s code. It means, not by the standard of whatever racial minority is being vilified. Not the ordinary reasonable wog, gook or sand-black person; the ordinary reasonable Australian. And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly?

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.

Every other race is marked by its difference, by its conspicuousness – by its non-whiteness. White people are not non-Asians or non-blacks. They aren’t “ethnic” as the term is popularly used. If the “ordinary reasonable Australian” has no race, then whether or not we admit it, that person is white by default and brings white standards and experiences to assessing the effects of racist behaviour. Anything else would be too particular.

This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.

I have no doubt the Abbott government doesn’t intend this. It doesn’t need to. That’s the problem. This is just the level of privilege we're dealing with.

This is what happens when protection from racism becomes a gift from the majority rather than a central part of the social pact. It’s what happens when racial minorities are required to be supplicants, whose claims to social equality are subordinate to those of powerful media outlets outraged they might occasionally have to publish an apology.

And it’s what happens when lawmakers and the culturally empowered proceed as though ours is a society without a racial power hierarchy simply because they sit at the top of it...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encounted

Another leftist f*ckw*t telling us how racist and privileged whitey is then goes on to make mass generalisations (negative ones at that) about whites.

This f*ckw*t also lecturers in our tax payer funded universities.

The only solution to c*nts like this is to withdraw the funding to those departments pricks like this thrive in.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Gnads on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:42pm

Jackness wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 4:19pm:

I'll concur on that point of view.

The misguided view that only europeans/whites are racists is the basis for the racial vilification act.........

the same could be applied to any religious vilification act...

race & religion are not one & the same yet certain groups apply it that way to suit their victim status

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 1^st, 2014 at 6:02pm

Jackness wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 4:19pm:

Your nearly there but not quite right what you say makes sense due to your omission of key words in the actual definition of the word bigot.
You are right most people are bigoted at some point in their life, however opposing and idea or concept is not bigotry. Suggest you read the meaning of the word again.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sparky on May 1^st, 2014 at 6:44pm

Imagine mortal human beings thinking they have the right to dictate what other human beings think and say. They'll just have to line up in an orderly fashion (remember no pushing) and commence to suck my balls. Thank you.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 1^st, 2014 at 7:58pm

NSW and Victoria join forces to oppose Coalition changes to Racial Discrimination Act

The Abbott Government is facing a united backlash from its Coalition colleagues in Victoria and New South Wales over proposed changes to racial discrimination laws.

The two most populous states have lodged formal submissions opposing the changes, warning they would weaken protections against racial vilification and threaten social cohesion.

They are urging Federal Attorney-General George Brandis to abandon plans to repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The change would prohibit vilification and intimidation on the basis of race, but make but make it lawful to insult, offend or humiliate.

The NSW and Victorian governments released a joint statement arguing "the proposed changes threaten the social cohesion and well-being of not just our states' culturally and religiously diverse communities, but also the wider Australian commune...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/nsw-victoria-oppose-coalition-changes-racial-discrimination-laws/5424520

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:17pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:40pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

educated idiots make me sick

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Soren on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:40pm

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:01pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Thoughts?

Cat got your tongue?

Is this like Muslims describing Muhammed beheading 800 unarmed Jewish POWs in one day as a noble act and an eternal example for mankind to follow?

What about parroting on about how one day even the rocks and trees will help you slaughter Jews?

Should you be allowed to spew crap like that? You tell me.

Quote:

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness. So, on this regard, I firmly believe it is the wrong time and circumstance to repeal the law. And I believe this is really done to divert the masses away from the real issues such as the economy.

Ah yes, the economy is more important than freedom, racism etc...

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:35pm

It should be mandatory

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Jackness on May 1^st, 2014 at 11:01pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

We are already inclusive in this aspect. It's the non-whites and new immigrants (mostly not all) who do not want to be a part of that inclusiveness. They wish to exclude themselves from the Australian society. They put their race and ethnic identity first and foremost before their identity as an Australian. You can see it for yourself. We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja, we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English, we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group, the list goes on.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 1^st, 2014 at 11:48pm

Jackness wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 11:01pm:

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

I believe that you are hitting the nail on the head, Jackness!

Quote:

We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja,

we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English,

we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group,

the list goes on.

Jackness,

I think that you may be accurately describing the behaviour of a bunch of racists!!!!!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:01am

people like to speak their own language, who would have guessed? Jackass, youre a genius!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:10am

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

You know when Brandis said: "Everyone have the right to be bigots you know."

Really, he was meaning "Everyone have the right to be racist."

Because it is on the matter of racial discrimination law. And everyone just assumed he meant the latter. Now, the attorney general cant say the latter, because it would be political suicide.

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness. So, on this regard, I firmly believe it is the wrong time and circumstance to repeal the law. And I believe this is really done to divert the masses away from the real issues such as the economy.

tickleandrose,

The argument that you are making is, effectively, that;

"Everyone has the right to be criminal.".

.....especially 'new Australians' !!!!

And that i [and everyone else in Australia] should try to 'accommodate', and to be tolerant, of the criminal behaviour of such people.

Of course, your implied argument is ridiculous.

And i do not have to play the 'inclusiveness' game, with people [i.e. with 'new Australians'] who think that it may be OK to exhibit criminal behaviour, in my cultural setting !

e.g.
Some people of different races and religion who come to live in Australia, clearly believe that murder [when they commit it] should be considered a lawful behaviour, for themselves.

Whereas, my culture, this Australian culture, seeks to teach everyone who lives here, that murder should NOT be lawful, for anyone.

So tickleandrose,

Why should i [or any other Australian] 'pursue' a goal of seeking 'inclusiveness' with/towards some people of 'different races and religion', if those people of 'different races and religion' believe that it should be lawful for them to murder people - coz its what they normally do, culturally ?

tickleandrose,

I have a solution. !!!!

Lets all just agree [among ourselves], that we should make it lawful to murder anyone who offends us !

Then we can all be in agreement, and we can all be 'inclusive' together !

What do your think about such an argument tickleandrose ?

+++

tickleandrose,

QUESTION;
Is it culturally OK, for 'new Australians' to murder people [i.e. other Australians], IF MURDER OF 'OTHERS' IS A CULTURAL NORM FOR THEM ?

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

tickleandrose,

QUESTION [again];
Is it culturally OK, for 'new Australians' to murder people [i.e. other Australians], IF MURDER OF 'OTHERS' IS A CULTURAL NORM FOR THEM ?

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.
Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Culture Warrior on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05am

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.

Every other race is marked by its difference, by its conspicuousness – by its non-whiteness. White people are not non-Asians or non-blacks. They aren’t “ethnic” as the term is popularly used. If the “ordinary reasonable Australian” has no race, then whether or not we admit it, that person is white by default and brings white standards and experiences to assessing the effects of racist behaviour. Anything else would be too particular.

This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encountered

Poor Waly Waheed. He tells whites that they aren't in a position to tell other races/ethnicities what to think, but then he, as a non-white, thinks he is in a position to say what whitey thinks and does.

Every "progressive" always does this, unknowingly of course. They always claim that whitey is the only racist one and then proceeds to make a bunch of negative generalisations about whites, all the while not cognizant of the fact that he's doing the same thing that he's criticizing.

It's a damning indictment on the academe. How can this clown be a lecturer but not see this basic contradiction? It just goes to show that it's not logical, consistent, reasoned arguments that makes one a lecturer, but that you hold certain moral viewpoints that are accepted as the norm.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:00am

[quote]We are already inclusive in this aspect. It's the non-whites and new immigrants (mostly not all) who do not want to be a part of that inclusiveness. They wish to exclude themselves from the Australian society. They put their race and ethnic identity first and foremost before their identity as an Australian. You can see it for yourself. We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja, we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English, we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group, the list goes on. {/quote]

I am not sure if we are arguing about the same point. I was arguing that from a ruling class perspective: since it is already a reality that Australia is made of many races, then, it is counter productive and wrong timing to change the law now.

As for your examples, I think you generalized too much. First, people can walk around with what ever clothing they like. At this stage, it is not against the law. And secondly, most Asian friends I have in school speaks fluent English and well as their home language. And third, there also alot of whites who dont want to mix with other races either. They are of personal choice. You will find that nowadays, there are alot of mixed race couples now - certainly more than what it was say 20 years ago. And this is evidence of progress.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Phemanderac on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:11am

So, if laws are haphazardly applied are you seriously suggesting that the best solution is to drop the laws. Driving infringements may find themselves on some pretty shaky ground.

I think it is quite telling that the idea of equality doesn't rate a mention.

Further freedom of speech should never be confused with freedom from responsibility.

Oh and if you think that racism towards white men is bad at the moment what do you consider things might look like after removal of 18c?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am

Re Yadda:

You are taking things to the extreme. Have a sit, relax, and drink a mug of milo first. :)

1) I have never said that tolerance of other people's culture or religion meant the tolerance of murder. You drew the connection in your mind. But a reasonable every day person would not. Why? Just look at the 'evidence' that you provided.

Oh... so dramatic, a picture with an angry young man holding a sign: behead all those who insult the prophet. But, look closer at the picture and what do you see? Mostly young men (typical), and probably without the right education or job. Even then, how many of them have actually beheaded anyone?

2) The law that is in place at the moment in Australia can also serve to restrict this sort of behaviour that you are so fearful of. Why stop it? If you think a bit deeper, do you think these kinds of behaviour would get worse or better under the new and more relaxed law?

3) I dont know about your pesonal experience. But the muslim people I see and know are not like them. I believe, by far, the majority of muslim Australians, (and Asian Australians) they face the same issue as we all do - rising cost of living, work, family issues, etc etc, and everyone are so busy these days, people just dont have the time nor the energy to take spiritual jihad to the physical level. Of course, there are always psychos, but hey, they are not the majority.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:37am

tickleandrose wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Hi tickle,
Yes, yadda may be a bit over the top.

islam has all the psychos. All the suicide bombers come from islam.
Wherever there is a religious 'problem worldwide, islam is involved.

the islamics here will jump up and down again at these comments.
But they are overal correct.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:07am

tickleandrose wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Re Yadda:

.... Just look at the 'evidence' that you provided.

Oh... so dramatic, a picture with an angry young man holding a sign: behead all those who insult the prophet. But, look closer at the picture and what do you see? Mostly young men (typical), and probably without the right education or job. Even then, how many of them have actually beheaded anyone?

2) The law that is in place at the moment in Australia can also serve to restrict this sort of behaviour that you are so fearful of. Why stop it? If you think a bit deeper, do you think these kinds of behaviour would get worse or better under the new and more relaxed law?

3) I dont know about your pesonal experience. But the muslim people I see and know are not like them.

tickleandrose,

You are mistaken.

The natural 'posture' of ISLAM and of the moslem, is militancy towards those who are not like themselves [towards those who resist the natural inclination of moslems to ISLAMACISE a society].

The moslems [living within Australia] who you see, who are NOT 'like them' [the placard wavers], are NOT 'radicalised' 'like them' ONLY because Australian secular law and Australian culture [at the moment!!] is successfully SUPPRESSING the normal [militant] practices of ISLAM.

While moslems are politically weak, moslems always pretend to a peaceful, benign, group.

This a strategy, in the type of conflict which moslems wage.

Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims
London, Sept.8 [2007]
A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain.
Polite and softly spoken....
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

The suppression, by Australians [and by Australian secular law] of the natural and 'lawful' militancy of ISLAM [against those who are not moslems] is going to be growing point of contention between the moslem community and host Australian society.

As the numbers of moslems increase within a host nation, the more that ISLAM's natural militancy is suppressed within that nation, the more local moslems will re-act with the claim that their community is being 'victimised'.

QUESTION;
When is the first massacre of hundreds [or thousands] of Australians, within Australia, by a group of 'radicalised' moslems going to happen ???

I do not know.

But when it does happen, we should not blame Australians [who warned us, about the REAL inclination of ~~'radicalised'~~ moslems to engage in ISLAMIC terror].

We should blame ISLAM - which 'religiously' teaches and encourages moslems to 'employ' terror and militancy, as a legitimate means to achieve political objectives.

Allah's Apostle said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land....."
Koran 8.67

Koran [8:67 above] meaning here, first moslems should beleaguer and slaughter their enemies in the land, to terrorise, to cower them.

And then later, moslems will more easily be able to defeat, and enslave a pliant, fearful enemy people.

+++

IMAGE...

August 4, 2005
Australian Islamic leader defends jihad
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.
"The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, is Islam."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1430551.htm

This very same moslem cleric, was later convicted of planning to bomb the Melbourne Cricket Ground, on Grand Final Day!!!
----->

The description of a YOUTUBE video;

Quote:

"A Melbourne Muslim cleric, found guilty of a terror plot to 'blow up' the Melbourne Cricket Ground speaks candidly about his intentions....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jT6ldUu4-4

Google;
mcg bombing plot by 'terrorists'

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:24am

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:07am:

While moslems are politically weak, moslems always pretend to a peaceful, benign, group.

This a strategy, in the type of conflict which moslems wage.

tickleandrose,

MOSLEMS ARE BARE FACED LIARS.

It is a cultural thing.

MOSLEMS HAVE NO SHAME, IN LYING TO THEIR WIVES, OR TO INFIDELS.

e.g. #1,
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;

"We condemn the killing of all innocent civilians."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article552594.ece

n.b.
Notice the form of words that are used, in the statement above!

e.g. #2,
Another UK moslem community leader, speaking of the SAME London 7/7 bombing;

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

tickleandrose,

And the 'KICKER' to those comments in item #1, were these...

"...Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar." "

i.e.
When this moslem cleric, is among moslems, he openly declares that it is OK - IT IS LAWFUL FOR A MOSLEM - to kill those who are not moslems.

ISLAMIC law texts declare, moslems can 'lawfully' kill 'unbelievers'/apostates,

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."i

+++

Google;
we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit

Taqiyya
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
google

A Study in Muslim Doctrine
"...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."
http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:55am

"Right To Bigotry"

And some people on this forum have accused me, Yadda, of being a bigot.

I am NOT a bigot.

And i am happy for any moslem to debate me and prove that i am mistaken, about my accusations, against ISLAM.

Some people have accused me of being a bigot, because i tell them 'uncomfortable' things.

I am making people feel, 'uncomfortable'.

But these are 'things', they are facts, they are instances, they are evidences, about ISLAM, which moslems have failed to adequately rebut.

Why is that ?

Dictionary;
rebut = = claim or prove to be false.

If what i am saying,
about what ISLAM is,
and about what ISLAM encourages,
and about the evidence which proves how moslems are intentionally lying to us,
if all of these accusations that i make are false, then why can't moslems prove me wrong, in debate.

Surely, if what i am asserting is false, surely a moslem can prove that what i am claiming is false.

What is my error ?

Is the difficulty for the moslem [to prove that what i claim is false], because that many of the 'sources' and the evidences that i use to accuse ISLAM, are from ISLAMIC sources, and from moslem sources ?

+++

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

ALL ABOUT THE MOSLEM DOCTRINE OF LYING, TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL OBJECTIVES....

Quote:

....Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am

      Yadda, I can see the problems caused by the unrestrained importation of Muslims to a Western nation as well as you, strewth, you'd have to be blind not to, but unlike you I don't see an answer in unrestrained prejudice and demonization of all Muslims.
      I prefer to argue for restrictions on immigration generally, of ALL races and religions, and for the understanding and acceptance of those already among us.
         The Australian society is an addictive thing, and highly absorbing of newcomers.
               You only need to look and listen in any schoolyard to see it, there's Vietnamese kids that if you close your eyes you cannot tell apart, and let's face it, who these days makes any trouble over an Italian or Greek surname? Yet at one time they were all at the receiving end of what Islam is today, xenophobia.
         Yes, Islamic Fundamentalism is a huge problem now, but radicalizing Australia's young Islamic believers by tarring them with that particular brush and abusing and rejecting them is only playing into the Fundamentalist's hands. If instead we sit back and engage with them, accept them, we can count on Australia absorbing them, their kids and grandkids will be as ridgy-didge dinky-di true-blue Aussies as all the "wog""dago" and "chink" and etc kids are now.
      Constantly quoting selectively from their Q'ran proves nothing at all, its in the interpretation and practice of that Holy Book that the truth lays. The Bible can also be selectively quoted to "prove", in your terms, what an evil and destructive religion Christianity "must be", yet do you or any sane person believe that even for a moment? No, you judge them by their actions, don't you?
         Well, apply the same measure to Australian Muslims, you'll sleep far better at night thereby, I assure you.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:31pm

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:01pm:

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Thoughts?

Cat got your tongue?

Is this like Muslims describing Muhammed beheading 800 unarmed Jewish POWs in one day as a noble act and an eternal example for mankind to follow?

Never happened.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:01pm:

What about parroting on about how one day even the rocks and trees will help you slaughter Jews?

What you refer to is a prophecy about a future war, in which, Jews of some future age, will be following and supporting the anti-Christ in his war against Jesus.

So instead of deflecting, please answer the question; should people be allowed to go around suggesting building gas chambers and ovens for Jews?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

aust - its gooid you can see a problem with muslims.
i don't think turning a blind eye is an effective response.
it has not worked in various european countries with a muslim problem.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 1:07pm

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

austranger,

SENARIO;
If i actually witnessed someone commit a murder, and if i then referred to that person, as a 'murderer', is that description, a 'demonization' ?

Now, is telling the truth about ISLAM, and the truth about the behaviour of moslems, my 'demonization' of moslems ?

Is that your argument ?

Is exposing the truth, that a moslem is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, ISLAM, which tells moslems that it is 'lawful' for moslems, to kill those who do not believe, as they believe - is that 'hate speech', on my part ???

Lets define the problem;

Who is a moslem ???

A moslem is a person who declares;

"I am a moslem. Allah is my God, and Mohammed is his prophet."

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Who is a moslem ???

A moslem is a follower - of ISLAM.

A moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, ISLAM, which tells moslems that it is 'lawful' for moslems, to kill those who do not believe, as they believe.

THAT IS WHAT ISLAM TEACHES, TO EVERYONE WHO IS A MOSLEM! [yes, i'm shouting]

But what about individual moslems ???

Are individual, non-radicalised moslems good people ???

Is that, really a logical proposition ?

QUESTION;
If it is true, that individual, non-radicalised moslems are good people, then why do those 'good' people, choose to associate themselves with ISLAM ???

Because, imo, logically, every individual moslem, by associating themselves with ISLAM, thereby, are choosing to associate themselves ~~with the evil, which ISLAM is~~ with what ISLAM promotes in the world.

Is that not a logical ~~conclusion~~ argument ???

That if a moslem declares; "I am a moslem!",, then, logically, that person is choosing to associate them self with ISLAM, AND, ASSOCIATING THEM SELF, WITH WHAT ISLAM ENCOURAGES AND PROMOTES IN THE WORLD.

And it is absurd, and it beggars belief, for anyone to claim that a [self declaring] moslem is unaware of what ISLAM promotes and encourages in the world.

That they are unaware of ISLAM's vicious and violent supremacist nature, and that ISLAM teaches and promotes a relationship - OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION - towards persons who are not moslems.

And yes, i hold MOSLEMS, responsible, for choosing to associate themselves, with what ISLAM is.

What is ISLAM ?

ISLAM is falsely described by moslems, as a peaceful and tolerant, justice-based 'religious' philosophy.

But ISLAM is a philosophy which encourages moslems to engage in intimidation and extreme violence as 'acts of religious faith', against persons who do not believe as they believe.

Who is a moslem ?

A moslem = = is a person who is a member of a group/community of persons, who have chosen to embrace a philosophy which encourages intimidation and extreme violence as 'acts of religious faith', against persons who do not believe as they believe.i

+++

The principle dictum which ISLAM imposes upon the moslem psyche.....

"....those who are not like us must be enslaved or murdered."

But i'm a moslem, and i don't know this!!!!! Honest! :P

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 2^nd, 2014 at 2:17pm

Re Yadda

My goodness Yadda, the way you go on things about muslim. Its like as if you are quiet paranoid and fearful. I am sorry if you feel this way. It must be very difficult to live like this, I can only imagine. Besides, do I sound like someone who is expert on Islam?

The changes to Racial discrimination law effects everyone, not just Muslims and Christians. I believe you are trying to divert the attention away from the original issue.

And I am not mistaking. I know that I am a good judge of character. And what evidence did you provide about Muslims, including my friends? - Mad rambling of extremist. And random quotes from the Koran. Now, if we start to judge each and every inividual on some book made thousands of years ago and strangers's mad rambling, rather than what each individual do, then our entire civilization would regress back into the dark ages - with endless wars and mob justice. This is not what an informed citizen should do.

And if you want to go into the details of it. Both Christians and Muslim scriptures contain verses which are incompatible with modern morality. However, just because the writing is there, it does not mean that it is right or that people would follow it.

I have Muslin friends who are in school, at work. And yes, some of them (not all) wears the veil. But if you go to their home, they usually take them off, and they look and behave exactly same as we are. My father also have muslim colleagues who are prominent surgeons, physicians and psychiatrists. They would just laugh at your infantile rantings.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 2^nd, 2014 at 3:31pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm:

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

aust - its gooid you can see a problem with muslims.
i don't think turning a blind eye is an effective response.
it has not worked in various european countries with a muslim problem.

I certainly did not say anything about turning a blind eye, and I don't think it helpful for you to attempt to put those words " in my mouth", so to speak.
I advised that we sit back and engage with them, accept them, , that's hardly the same thing, is it?
I hope that clears things up for you?
It's only by showing them that they can indeed become Australians that they will try to be, and hopefully succeed in being, good citizens of this mad mix of muddling mankind we call our home, Australia, may the Great Wombat bless her and all who sail in her! ;)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 3:56pm

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm:

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

aust - its gooid you can see a problem with muslims.
i don't think turning a blind eye is an effective response.
it has not worked in various european countries with a muslim problem.

Sorry austranger, you are correct. I had misinterpereted what you said.
I don't think sitting back, engaging and accepting islam is a good idea.
I think it is a very bad idea. It's not like any other religion.

You can't be logical to illogical people.
You can't be reasonable to unreasonable people.
You can't sit back, engage and accept islam.

Well, I can't.

Have a good weekend

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 2^nd, 2014 at 4:26pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 3:56pm:

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm:

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

aust - its gooid you can see a problem with muslims.
i don't think turning a blind eye is an effective response.
it has not worked in various european countries with a muslim problem.

Now I'm wondering if you really read my post at all, or just wrote it off because I wasn't agreeing with you?

You obviously missed this bit too, or misinterpreted it somehow?

Yes, Islamic Fundamentalism is a huge problem now, but radicalizing Australia's young Islamic believers by tarring them with that particular brush and abusing and rejecting them is only playing into the Fundamentalist's hands.

You certainly appear to be intent on assisting the radical crazies rather than helping Australia, perhaps we could consider your attitude as traitorous because of that?
That would seem to fit into your particular form of " logic"

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 2^nd, 2014 at 4:58pm

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 1:07pm:

austranger wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:58am:

Absolute rubbish you sound like and Anglo version of of those radical Islamic fundamentalist mullahs. You post so much links and quotes out of context with omissions that distort the fact to attempt to convince others to feel the rage you do. In the Hope others feel you rage vicariously on act on it because you won't. You along with the rest of the bigots (from all cultures and races) looking to incite through propaganda. Is the reason why we don't have the right to bigotry or violence which it ulitimately leads to. Bigotry is the major precursor to racial and cultural friction.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 6:57pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 2:17pm:

Re Yadda

My goodness Yadda, the way you go on things about muslim....

....I have Muslin friends who are in school, at work. And yes, some of them (not all) wears the veil. But if you go to their home, they usually take them off, and they look and behave exactly same as we are.

My father also have muslim colleagues who are prominent surgeons, physicians and psychiatrists.

They would just laugh at your infantile rantings.

Ha, ha, ha, ....it is to laugh.

tickleandrose,

Ostensibly, many of your moslem friends, do not talk with you, ....of Mohammed, or of Allah, nor of their obligation to 'do Jihad' against the local infidels ?

QUESTION;

tickleandrose,

If it is true, that your moslem friends DO NOT fulfil the obligations to ISLAM [which ISLAM places upon every moslem], then, please tell us all,
then in what sense are your moslem friends, followers of ISLAM ?
i.e.
'moslems' ?

tickleandrose,

If your moslem friends do not reverence, respect, and obey what the inerrant Koran commands them to do [and how to behave, towards those who reject ISLAM], then in what sense are your friends 'moslems' ?

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51

tickleandrose,

Are your moslem friends apostate moslems ?

If your moslem friends are apostate moslems [because they can't bring themselves to obey Allah's commands], then why haven't they renounced ISLAM ?

And why haven't they dis-associated themselves, from ISLAM ?

tickleandrose,

You must know, that, TO BE A MOSLEM, a moslem must respect and embrace ISLAM's tenets and all of its laws ???

+++

Quote:

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"

SAYYID QUTB - ISLAMIC scholar
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

OR, Google;
"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE" SAYYID QUTB

The word, Jahiliyya, refers to the un-ISLAMIC lifestyle.

, e.g. Jahiliyya includes the behaviour, of embracing political pluralism, instead of ISLAM, alone.

All moslems know this.

e.g.

Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam...
...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law.
"We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html

Moslem ARE NOT PERMITTED, by ISLAM, to join themselves, to integrate with, the un-ISLAMIC society.

If a moslem does so, ISLAM declares that his Kafir blood can be spilled, because he is not longer a moslem.

The 'Jahiliyya' lifestyle is declared, by ISLAMIC scholars, to be totally incompatible with following ISLAM.

And in fact, to ISLAM, and to devout moslems, the mere existence of non-moslem communities in the world is viewed as insulting to Allah.

So you see, moslems are forbidden to be friends with the un-ISLAMIC world.

If any moslems do choose to be friends with the un-ISLAMIC world, then Allah hates them, and denounces them.

Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia...

Quote:

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
"...true Islam is a complete system with no room for any element of Jahiliyya"
"...all aspects of Jahiliyya...are "evil and corrupt" "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society

tickleandrose,

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Which is it ?

And if they are apostate moslems, then why won't they dis-associate themselves, from ISLAM ?

How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

"A Study in Muslim Doctrine

...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden,
insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."
http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15pm

Quote:

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:29pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15pm:

hi austranger - I did read your posting.
I disagree with it.
many Countries in Europe are regretting accepting muslims into their society.
We should be proactive in Aussie

There were Muslims living in Australia before the British settled it. Muslims developed Australia's first export industry. There Muslims in the First Fleet and in Flinder's exploratory voyage that made the first recorded circumnavigation of Australia. Muslims contributed to the exploration of this country, and its development, laying the first transport and communications infrastructure across the continent.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:38pm

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15pm:

hi austranger - I did read your posting.
I disagree with it.
many Countries in Europe are regretting accepting muslims into their society.
We should be proactive in Aussie

Moslems also were the first to invent the computer micro chip, and moslems were the first to land a man on the moon too.

Its true, all of it. :P

Allah Akbar!!!!!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:59pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

hi austranger - I did read your posting.
I disagree with it.
many Countries in Europe are regretting accepting muslims into their society.
We should be proactive in Aussie
[/quote]

Oh yeah, that'll work just fine.
That's what the French and Pommies did, just like you they ranted and attacked Muslims, driving the youngsters into the arms of the Fundamentalists, and that's what they're paying the price for now.
You'd "proactive us all into a similar situation, and then scream.."See, I told ya so", whereas with patience and understanding there's a good chance we wouldn't face anything like that here.
Since it's been so vividly proven over there that you're approach is a total failure, is it sane to repeat it, or far more logical to try a different approach?
What sort of loser wants to repeat a guaranteed disaster?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:13pm

I blame the muslims for the Islamic problems in england, france, denmark, Sweden and almost every other country muslims have seeped into.

you blame the infidels if you want.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:19pm

One of the first British settlers in the Northern Territory wrote, after leaving the settlement, of the Aborigines living near the Port Essington:

Quote:

A few have been converted to Mohammedanism; one of these, Caraday, a chief of one of Goulbourn's Islands, visited us soon after our arrival at Port Essington. He had been circumcised, and refused to eat pork.

- G W Earl, 'An account of a visit to Kisser, one of the Serawatti group in the Indian archipelago, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. 11, 1841, p.116.

In the 1930's an American anthropologist, W. L. Warner, recorded Aboriginal ceremonies in which contained Quranic prayers.

The ANU's expert on trepanging, Campbell Macknight has extensively written on the industry and concludes that the Muslims from the East Indies were exporting trepang and other goods from Australia at least half a century before Captain Cook. In correspondence with myself, he concedes that in light of recent archaeological evidence it is possible that the trade began around 100 years earlier than that.

For the rest you can check the records of the first fleet, the journal of Matthew flinders and accounts of expeditions such as Burke and Wills.

Read some books Yadda, it might do you some good. There is a lot of Australian history that most Australians are ignorant of. It is not just the Muslims and Indonesians who lived and worked in northern Australia before the arrival of Captain Cook.

You might ponder the Dutch maps of nearly half of Australia more than a 150 years older than the less than a quarter of the continent mapped by Cook.

How well-publicised was the traces of others that the British found here? Or was it all swept under the carpet?

You might wonder at the Portuguese mahogany boat found near Warnambool or the metal keys found buried in Geelong that pre-dated British settlement. You might also wonder of the Portuguese-speaking Aboriginal woman found on Tiwi Island before the British settled the region.

You might consider the early Europeans explorers like Marco Polo or writers like Manuel Godhino Eredia who wrote that the Malay kingdoms had dealings with Australia centuries before Cook arrived.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:29pm

true colours, - you also know of the first Islamic terrorist here ?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:34pm

Quote:

On 1 January 1915 at Broken Hill, two men, Mullah Abdullah (c.1855-1915), a camel-driver and Islamic priest in the company of Gool Badsha Mahomed (c.1875-1915), camel-driver, soldier and labourer decided upon a suicide mission with the intent of killing as many people as possible until they too died.

The first victims of this spree were killed or wounded in the town itself. Then the two men set themselves up in a position to fire upon a 40 wagon picnic train filled with 1200 passengers that was slowly passing by. This resulted in more casualties. Finally the two men were engaged and shot dead. At the end of the day, 4 people were killed and 7 wounded.

This album consists of a collection of various photographs obtained from newspapers and other sources with the aim of placing these disparate items in one place.

http://alh-research.tripod.com/the_battle_of_broken_hill_new_south_wales_1_january_1915/index.album/plate-from-ottoman-uniforms-18001918-battle-of-broken-hill-1915-chris-flaherty?i=53

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:43pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:29pm:

true colours, - you also know of the first Islamic terrorist here ?

There were plenty of Christian terrorists in Australia, shooting and poisoning Aboriginal civilians for more than century.

We know that in recent history, every mass shooting, bombing, and hijacking attempt ever committed by Australian citizens were all done by Christians.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:12pm

And yet there are over a dozen Muslims in our jails on terrorism charges.

Unfair isn't it TC?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sir Bobby on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:00am

The worst bigot ever but so funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGh82dVtco

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:14am

"shalom alekum"

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:20am

does anyone ever say no you cant come in I wonder. Very duplicitous race the Arabs.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by mattywisk on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:15am

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:29pm:

true colours, - you also know of the first Islamic terrorist here ?

Incorrect.

For them to do so would fly in the face of what a Christian is. Anyone can commit a crime and call themselves a Christian all they want yet they still are not according to the doctrine. Much crime has been committed under the banner of calling themselves Christians yet they clearly were not according to Christian doctrine. Unlike Islam where the scriptures can be quoted to justify their crimes and the doctrine is still applicable to the way they live today.

I have never seen the scriptures that muslim extremists use today be refuted yet by a muslim above the deathly silence of the so called moderates. Yet you can quiet easily quote Christian teachings denouncing the things you have just tried to pin on them. Clearly they were not Christians at all. At best hypocritical heathens flying under the banner of Christianity.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:30am

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:19pm:

One of the first British settlers in the Northern Territory wrote, after leaving the settlement, of the Aborigines living near the Port Essington:

Quote:

And apparently, none of the other explorers thought Australia was worth enough to do anything permanent about settling here.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 3^rd, 2014 at 7:58am

re Yadda

Quote:

Ostensibly, many of your moslem friends, do not talk with you, ....of Mohammed, or of Allah, nor of their obligation to 'do Jihad' against the local infidels ?

Very seldomly, and not to a degree that you are. You seemed a bit.... extreme from the sound of your post. Oh we talk about the more important things in life. You know, school, life in general, relationshps.... just normal things.....

Quote:

If it is true, that your moslem friends DO NOT fulfil the obligations to ISLAM [which ISLAM places upon every moslem], then, please tell us all,
then in what sense are your moslem friends, followers of ISLAM ?

Quote:

If your moslem friends do not reverence, respect, and obey what the inerrant Koran commands them to do [and how to behave, towards those who reject ISLAM], then in what sense are your friends 'moslems' ?

Just like my dad thinks he is Anglican, but he rarely ever go to church on Sundays. If you look up Church participation - Islam countries, you will be surprised that the rate of participation is not 100%, even in countries like Iran. Look, the society is getting more and more busier. Some of my dad's colleagues are working long hours, and what little time they have left - they prefer to spend that with their family, going on trips etc. May be you - Yadda have the time and energy to think about these things, or think that other people have time to think about these things. But in reality, everyone have the same day to day issues to face, and alot of times, for ordinary citizens, those are much more important than waging some holy war against non believers.

I guess, this is point where we differ.

Quote:

If your moslem friends are apostate moslems [because they can't bring themselves to obey Allah's commands], then why haven't they renounced ISLAM ?

And why haven't they dis-associated themselves, from ISLAM ?

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Which is it ?

And if they are apostate moslems, then why won't they dis-associate themselves, from ISLAM ?

So now you accusing people lying without proof. You know, your rigid view of world and people is going to make yourself suffer. My dad's colleagues, they are professionals that have shown to contribute to the society. You have nothing to prove to your extemist views. It is YOU, who must provide proof - not by quoting over the books - everyone can do that. In fact, you can even make the argument that all Buddhists are mass murderers if you try hard enough. :)

But, at the end of the day Yadda. What are you try to achieve? Lets just pretend - that everything you said is true, and you are gravely fearful of what can happen. Then, isnt more important in your interest to strengthen the racial discrimination law rather than relax it? This is one thing that I can not make sense from you.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28am

Quote:

Just like my dad thinks he is Anglican, but he rarely ever go to church on Sundays. If you look up Church participation - Islam countries, you will be surprised that the rate of participation is not 100%, even in countries like Iran. Look, the society is getting more and more busier. Some of my dad's colleagues are working long hours, and what little time they have left - they prefer to spend that with their family, going on trips etc. May be you - Yadda have the time and energy to think about these things, or think that other people have time to think about these things. But in reality, everyone have the same day to day issues to face, and alot of times, for ordinary citizens, those are much more inportant than waging some holy war against non believers.

So that's your answer to all the evil crap in Islam - too busy to think about it, I'm just a normal guy who eats corn flakes for breakfast?

Quote:

And I am not mistaking. I know that I am a good judge of character. And what evidence did you provide about Muslims, including my friends? - Mad rambling of extremist. And random quotes from the Koran. Now, if we start to judge each and every inividual on some book made thousands of years ago and strangers's mad rambling, rather than what each individual do, then our entire civilization would regress back into the dark ages - with endless wars and mob justice. This is not what an informed citizen should do.

So if someone says they are a Nazi, it is wrong to judge them until they actually start slaughtering Jews?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:34am

re Freediver

Quote:

So that's your answer to all the evil crap in Islam - too busy to think about it, I'm just a normal guy who eats corn flakes for breakfast?

Dont believe me? Look up Mosque / church participation rate in Islamic countries.

So are you a normal guy who eats corn flakes for breakfast? ;)

Quote:

So if someone says they are a Nazi, it is wrong to judge them until they actually start slaughtering Jews?

Thats exactly what Attoney General Brandis was saying, not me. -e.g. "People have the right to be bigots you know".

Now I am completely against the change of the law, and even the Muslims are against changing the law. It is Yadda who wants to change the law, not me. I argue that may be we should strengthen the law.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:42am

Quote:

Thats exactly what Attoney General Brandis was saying, not me. -e.g. "People have the right to be bigots you know".

No it is not the same thing. You completely misunderstand. Brandis never claimed that the right extended to not being judged for holding backwards and evil political views. He did not claim we have to constantly apologise for the Muslims, communists, Nazis etc.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:58am

Quote:

It is you and Yadda are putting all Muslims and Nazis in the same category. So with the weakening of the racial discrimination laws - do you think its going to increase or decrease the amount of extemist views? Well, i reckon there will be an increase. On this subject then, so just how the current changes to Racial Discrimination law would help you getting rid of or silence some of those views that you so fearful about?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 3^rd, 2014 at 9:06am

Quote:

So with the weakening of the racial discrimination laws - do you think its going to increase or decrease the amount of extemist views?

I think it would make bugger all difference. The only difference it will make is whether you hear them, and whether they can sneak up on society.

Quote:

On this subject then, so just how the current changes to Racial Discrimination law would help you getting rid of or silence those some of those views that you so fearful about?

What makes you think I want to silence certain views?

Do you get the concept that having a right to be a bigot, Nazi, Muslim or communist is not the same as being free from criticism for holding those views?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:06am

Mattywisk wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:15am:

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:29pm:

true colours, - you also know of the first Islamic terrorist here ?

Incorrect.

For them to do so would fly in the face of what a Christian is. Anyone can commit a crime and call themselves a Christian all they want yet they still are not according to the doctrine.

Much crime has been committed under the banner of calling themselves Christians yet they clearly were not according to Christian doctrine.

Unlike Islam where the scriptures can be quoted to justify their crimes and the doctrine is still applicable to the way they live today.

I have never seen the scriptures that muslim extremists use today be refuted yet by a muslim above the deathly silence of the so called moderates. Yet you can quiet easily quote Christian teachings denouncing the things you have just tried to pin on them. Clearly they were not Christians at all. At best hypocritical heathens flying under the banner of Christianity.

Correct mattywisk.

We often see moslems [and atheist apologists for moslems], try to fabricate a moral equivalence to ISLAM and to Christianity.

They will try to project an illegal morality upon Christians and Christianity, by presenting a fallacious comparison between [what is] the 'lawful' behaviour of moslems and what would be the un-lawful behaviour of Christians.

e.g.
It is apparent that if Christians ever killed their critics [or a critic of Jesus teachings], they would be acting against their religion.

Whereas, whenever moslems kill their critics, and the critics of their 'religion', moslems are merely imitating the 'lawful' actions of Mohammed, a person who is regarded by all moslems, as the most virtuous moslem.

e.g.

Quote:

Ishaq: 676 “[Context note: Asma bint Marwan was a writer. She wrote critically of Muhammad, telling her tribe to be wary of him, like this:] ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling baby and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’ ”

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360381351/0#0

And Allah himself has declared, that because Mohammed was an extraordinarily righteous man [in Allah's eyes], that Mohammed was the example, the type of man that other moslem men were to imitate, in their own deeds.

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.21

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:32am

tickleandrose wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:34am:

re Freediver

Quote:

So that's your answer to all the evil crap in Islam - too busy to think about it, I'm just a normal guy who eats corn flakes for breakfast?

Dont believe me? Look up Mosque / church participation rate in Islamic countries.

tickleandrose,

Hagia Sophia, in Turkey, was built by Christians.

It is a Christian cathedral.

How many Christians are permitted [by Turkish authorities] to worship in Hagia Sophia ?

"Hagia Sophia.....is a former patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey......It was the largest cathedral ever built in the world for nearly a thousand years....It was the patriarchal church of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the religious focal point of the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly 1000 years.
In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and Sultan Mehmed II ordered the building to be converted into the Ayasofya Mosque."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

Iran: Seven historic synagogues in Tehran destroyed
Tehran, 15 April [2008] (AKI) - Seven ancient synagogues in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have been destroyed by local authorities.
The synagogues were in the Oudlajan suburb of Tehran, where many Iranian Jews used to live.
"These buildings, which were part of our cultural, artistic and architectural heritage were burnt to the ground," said Ahmad Mohit Tabatabaii, the director of the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) office in Tehran.
"With the excuse of renovating this ancient quarter, they are erasing a part of our history," said Tabatabaii.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2075294012

16 May 2006
Pressure on multi-faith Malaysia
Malaysia is considering its multi-cultural credentials after a crowd of Muslims on Sunday broke up a meeting called to defend the rights of religious minorities.
...."I'm becoming an alien in Malaysia, in my own country," says Dr Jacob George.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4965580.stm

Destruction of Non-Muslim Worship Centers Riles Faith Minorities in Malaysia
By Sean Yoong for AP:
April 01, 2007
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - The cavernous pink Putra Mosque with its soaring minaret is one of the most commanding sights and popular tourist photo backdrops in the new city of Putrajaya.
A house of worship for thousands of Muslims in the 8-year-old administrative capital of Malaysia, it is a showcase of the nation's dominant faith Islam.
But the mosque also highlights the fact that Putrajaya doesn't have a single church or temple a fact that minority Buddhists, Hindus and Christians see as one example of the second-class treatment other faiths get in this Muslim-majority country.
http://christianpost.com/article/20070330/destruction-of-non-muslim-worship-centers-riles-faith-minorities-in-malaysia.htm

Church demolished in Muslim-run state [Malaysia]
June 19 2007
Kuala Lumpur - Authorities have demolished a church in a Muslim-ruled state in northeast Malaysia, sparking anger among the indigenous people who say they own the property....
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20070619141302153C420344

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:06am:

Mattywisk wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:15am:

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:29pm:

true colours, - you also know of the first Islamic terrorist here ?

Incorrect.

For them to do so would fly in the face of what a Christian is. Anyone can commit a crime and call themselves a Christian all they want yet they still are not according to the doctrine.

Much crime has been committed under the banner of calling themselves Christians yet they clearly were not according to Christian doctrine.

Unlike Islam where the scriptures can be quoted to justify their crimes and the doctrine is still applicable to the way they live today.

I have never seen the scriptures that muslim extremists use today be refuted yet by a muslim above the deathly silence of the so called moderates. Yet you can quiet easily quote Christian teachings denouncing the things you have just tried to pin on them. Clearly they were not Christians at all. At best hypocritical heathens flying under the banner of Christianity.

This is where it starts from a position of moral or genetic superiority. Humans all humans have the capacity great evil and good. Don't forget we have a royal commission in the our Christian organisation actions currently on going. However that line of conversation counter productive, he said she said rubbish.
I'm glad that the proposed repeals will not succeed as most political parties, state premiers will oppose it, as they're know what the moderate majority of Australia believe. It will be our end if we become a bigoted state like Russia, as we do not have the economic or military power to stand alone as beacon for bigotry as the Russians.
The USA and Uk aren't of the same opinion so. I have no idea with where this restarted idea that the right to bigotry is something we need to progress our society

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:14pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:58am:

Quote:

It is you and Yadda are putting all Muslims and Nazis in the same category.

tickleandrose,

Your accusation is a misrepresentation, it is untrue.

It is moslems themselves, through their association with ISLAM, who are choosing to align themselves with Nazi ideas and ideals!

Google;
similarity between islam and nazism

Have a look at some of the Google hits that are presented.

Many of you may be ~~surprised~~ shocked!

Both ISLAM and Nazism promote totalitarianism as a method of achieving power, and maintaning political power

Dictionary;
totalitarian = = relating to a centralized and dictatorial system of government requiring complete subservience to the state.

+++

ISLAM and Nazism both promote totalitarianism

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65

"O ye who believe! ASK NOT QUESTIONS about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
SOME PEOPLE BEFORE YOU DID ASK SUCH QUESTIONS, AND ON THAT ACCOUNT LOST THEIR FAITH."
Koran 5.101

Knowledge of truth, outside of ISLAM is prohibited....

""And believe no one unless he follows your religion." Say: "True guidance is the Guidance of Allah: (Fear ye) Lest a revelation be sent to someone (else) Like unto that which was sent unto you? or that those (Receiving such revelation) should engage you in argument before your Lord?" Say: "All bounties are in the hand of Allah: He granteth them to whom He pleaseth: And Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things." "
Koran 3.073

Muslims are told not to suffer any criticism or scrutiny ['mockery or sport'] of Muhammad or their faith.....

"O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed).
When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding.
Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?" "
Koran 5.057
v. 57-59

Obey the clerics only, don't be disobedient to ISLAM / clerics!!!......

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).
Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not:
For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not."
Koran 8.020

+++

ALL MOSLEMS ARE THE COWARDLY, FAWNING SYCOPHANTS OF EVIL MEN AND OPPRESSORS - WHO ARE PRETENDING TO BE IN CHARGE OF [LEADING] A JUSTICE BASED RELIGION

FAWNING = = 'yes men'

SYCOPHANTS = = cowardly ar-se lickers

And my God has declared that it is the hot place, for all such people!

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

ISLAM = = "Let us do evil, so that good may come."

And every moslem is in agreement with that 'philosophy'.

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

Hot place!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:37pm

Rubin wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

This is where it starts from a position of moral or genetic superiority.

Rubin,

Not really.

God asks only this of us [of men],
That we seek HIM.

.....and that we love righteousness MORE THAN this world, and the things of this world.

But many men would prefer to spit in God's face.iRubin wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

Humans all humans have the capacity great evil and good. Don't forget we have a royal commission in the our Christian organisation actions currently on going. However that line of conversation counter productive, he said she said rubbish.
I'm glad that the proposed repeals will not succeed as most political parties, state premiers will oppose it, as they're know what the moderate majority of Australia believe. It will be our end if we become a bigoted state like Russia, as we do not have the economic or military power to stand alone as beacon for bigotry as the Russians.
The USA and Uk aren't of the same opinion so. I have no idea with where this restarted idea that the right to bigotry is something we need to progress our society

Rubin,

Not stated, but in fact, your argument is, that truth = = bigotry.

That is a lie.

2 Thessalonians 2:8
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Jeremiah 9:1
Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!
2 Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.
3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.
4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.
6 Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.

+++

Truth is simple.
Truth isn't complicated.
Truth is not hidden from men.
Truth is hidden by men.

Rubin,

Many people do not want to ~~believe~~ acknowledge, the truth.

Many people today, hate, the truth.

And yet the truth is never diminished, by those who reject the truth.

The integrity of truth remains intact, even though some will always reject it.

Dictionary;
integrity = =
1 the quality of having strong moral principles.
2 the state of being whole. the condition of being unified or sound in construction. internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:47pm

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:37pm:

Rubin wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

This is where it starts from a position of moral or genetic superiority.

Well doesn't really matter I don't care what believe in Islam or Christ or anything else just your al as mad as each other with your indoctrinated crap. It was there to give some guidance not just promote intolerance and to provide absolution for their despicable acts. Religion whatever faith or denomination is as corrupt as any other institution. That doesn't mean there aren't good people associated with them though.
God bothers all the same

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:45pm

Rubin wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:47pm:

Well doesn't really matter I don't care what believe in Islam or Christ or anything else just your al as mad as each other with your indoctrinated crap. It was there to give some guidance not just promote intolerance and to provide absolution for their despicable acts.

Religion whatever faith or denomination is as corrupt as any other institution.

That doesn't mean there aren't good people associated with them though.

God bothers all the same

That is right Rubin.

Christians, are just like moslems. :P

~~And that is your opinion because you don't want to discriminate(1) between them.~~

And that is your opinion because you don't have the wit, to discriminate(2) between them.

For 1, and 2, see below....

Dictionary;
discrimination = =
1 the action of discriminating against people.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. good judgement or taste.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by mattywisk on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:57pm

After reading this I can't see how any muslim can take themselves seriously at all. No wonder there is no solice for them spiritually when the paganism is taken seriously.

Ishaq: 676 “[Context note: Asma bint Marwan was a writer. She wrote critically of Muhammad, telling her tribe to be wary of him, like this:] ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling baby and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’ ”

--------

Mohammed answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’ ”

Clearly mohammed was not a prophet from a real god at all. At the end of the day he was a cult leader of a cult made up in his head and based upon paganism of the day to build an army to go raping and pillaging for booty. Pure and simple. In fact I reckon he would be amazed at the following he has today after he died. The only reason that is the case is that evil mankind craves the same stuff mohammed did. That is the only reason islam survives today and that doesn't say much about this world. I feel sorry for the poor people bought up or forced with it that think its the true path to righteousness when clearly thats far from the case.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 3^rd, 2014 at 5:35pm

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:45pm:

Rubin wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:47pm:

Well doesn't really matter I don't care what believe in Islam or Christ or anything else just your al as mad as each other with your indoctrinated crap. It was there to give some guidance not just promote intolerance and to provide absolution for their despicable acts.

Religion whatever faith or denomination is as corrupt as any other institution.

That doesn't mean there aren't good people associated with them though.

God bothers all the same

See what's going on in and around Russia remember Bosnia
Christian just the same . Both completely blinded by faith if you're not in the fold, you are a lessor. Wit has nothing to do with it I have no bias I know lots of good and bad on both side. Oh and forget about the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. That fanaticism so much different.
Oh please open your eyes, :D

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:50pm

Re Freediver.

Hi was busy busy over the weekend, hope you had a good time as well :)

Quote:

I am all for constructive criticisms. To me, a bigot transcends race and religion. E.g. you can have a Christian bigot, a Muslim bigot, or a Communist bigot. They are entitled to their views, however, if they are using their views to hurt others, then they would have to prepare for the consequences.

My argument initially, is that we are a multi racial country. Our leaders should lead by example to encourage more an inclusive society (not just white Vs others, or someone - immigrant or not - think that they are better than others). And it is of my view that the relaxation of the racial discrimination law is detrimental and certainly bad timing at the moment.

That is until Yadda hijaked my idea, and claim that I somehow condone some religious war. :-[ I dont even know how I got cornered like this!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:57pm

Re Yadda:

Quote:

Hagia Sophia, in Turkey, was built by Christians.

It is a Christian cathedral.

How many Christians are permitted [by Turkish authorities] to worship in Hagia Sophia ?

I asked you to look at Mosque / Church participation rate. Meaning, check the percentage of population who are Islamic in Islamic countries, Vs the percentage of regular mosque participation. Check the rates in Islamic countries, and then check the rates here in Australia. Do a comparison. And you will find that alot of people have more real things to worry about than some religious crusade.

And then of course, you went into a religious frenzy by quoting selected passages from the Koran and the bible. You are one of the more extreme extremist I have ever encountered.

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

And who is your God? What is your religion any way? I know you are quoting from the bible. But which school of Christian do you believe?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 5^th, 2014 at 2:13pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

Re Yadda:

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

And who is your God?

Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob....

Quote:

What is your religion any way? I know you are quoting from the bible. But which school of Christian do you believe?

I don't particularly like the term 'Christian'.

But i guess that i am, a Christian.

I was born, into a non-practising Anglican family.

I am a bible student, i became a bible student.

I read the bible every day, mostly.

I am a seeker of the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

I am an individual who is seeking forgiveness for all of my mistakes, in this place.

Matthew 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.....

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 5^th, 2014 at 3:06pm

Quote:

I don't particularly like the term 'Christian'.
But i guess that i am, a Christian.
I was born, into a non-practising Anglican family.
I am a bible student, i became a bible student.
I read the bible every day, mostly.
I am a seeker of the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.
I am an individual who is seeking forgiveness for all of my mistakes, in this place.

Hey, that sound like my parents. They are sort of 'non proctising' Anglican as well.
What do you mean that you dont like the term Christian? So are you an Anglican? Or something else. It would be helpful for me to understand your perspective. And then, if I can, come up with an entertaining reply to your posts. :)

N.b. You sound really really like one of my brother's friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist - am I right? ::)
N.b. If you want to keep it a secret, can you at least tell if you believe in Jesus, the resurrection and the holy trinity. :)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 5^th, 2014 at 4:22pm

What I like about this thread is though people have opinions that are polar opposites they have been able to robustly state their points of view without reverting to straight out bigotry and remained the socials norm and laws of our society as it stands. Congratulations all
Why do we now need to legislate change ?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 5^th, 2014 at 5:42pm

May the Great Wombat protect us from " 'ists" of any ilk, I don't know of many that serve the Common Weal to any advantage or profit.

straight_talk.jpg (10 KB | 72 )

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 5^th, 2014 at 7:32pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:

Quote:

I don't particularly like the term 'Christian'.
But i guess that i am, a Christian.
I was born, into a non-practising Anglican family.
I am a bible student, i became a bible student.
I read the bible every day, mostly.
I am a seeker of the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.
I am an individual who is seeking forgiveness for all of my mistakes, in this place.

What i have against 'modern' Christianity is....

1/ Too many Christians [i.e. their Christian churches and organisations] today are pro-Palestinian [and therefore they are giving aid to ISLAM - ISLAM which actively and 'legitimately' persecutes and murders 'Christians' throughout the world, as a doctrine of ISLAMIC faith].

2/ Many Christian churches and organisations today [who have been taken in by ISLAMIST lies] are slandering the Jewish people, and the state of Israel.

3/ Many Christians may be a member of a Christian church, but they don't / rarely ever read their bible. [when they are being led by men, where is the spirit of God, in their heart ?]

I choose to separate myself from the bulk of those who refer to themselves, today, as 'Christians'.

Quote:

N.b. You sound really really like one of my brother's friend who is a Seventh Day Adventist - am I right? ::)

I am not a SDA

Quote:

N.b. If you want to keep it a secret, can you at least tell if you believe in Jesus, the resurrection and the holy trinity. :)

Yes.
Yes.
No.

There is no 'trinity'.

Jesus the man, came as a manifestation of 'God the spirit', in the flesh.

The Jesus who came [among men] as a manifestation of 'God the spirit', is the very same 'God the spirit', who led the children of Israel out of Egypt.

1 Corinthians 10:1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

And the Jesus who came [among men] as a manifestation of 'God the spirit', is the very same 'God the spirit', who manifested himself as a man [with two companions] to Abraham. [Genesis 18]

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 14:8
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus said....

John 8:23
....Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

+++

As for Jesus 'and' God.....

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 5^th, 2014 at 7:46pm

Of course, what i stated, is only my own perceptions.

I don't 'go to church', ....instead, i read the bible, and fast, and meditate, and i say sorry.

The Christian churches teach and adhere to what they believe.

Christ is the central figure, his work and sacrifice is what we need to acknowledge, to believe in.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:46pm

Quote:

Hurt their feelings?

What consequences?

Quote:

And it is of my view that the relaxation of the racial discrimination law is detrimental and certainly bad timing at the moment.

What's with the timing?

Quote:

I dont even know how I got cornered like this!

By being so vague.

Quote:

Why do we now need to legislate change ?

Because it is the right thing to do. You cannot defend freedom with censorship, you can only create a facade.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by IQSRLOW on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm

This is an area the government needs to remove themselves from. They re effectively legislating thought.

As Brandid said, people have the right to be bigoted, so they can talk and let public opinion be the designated officiator of what is correct. Silencing opinion removes the important part of societies place to rebel or revel that opinion. That is societies job, not the governments.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:28pm

Someone said:-

I disagree with your point of view, but I will defend to the death your right to hold it....

Words to that effect....

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by IQSRLOW on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:37pm

Yes, but the govt with these laws is effectively removing the right of society to regulate itself. This is dangerous to society in that it will erode the ability for society to regulate itself. It will be a skill lost to govt that society needs to function effectively and cohesively.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sir _Oh_Yeah on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

That is a cop out.
The idea that "society" or "public opinion" should be the arbitrator is something that a conservative with no connection to the real world would say.

The problem is that Andrew Bolt and the other shock jocks have a very visible public profile and a very public media platform from which they can offend, humiliate and denigrate their victims.

On the other hand the victims don't have any sort of power. This power imbalance is why we need laws to protect the vulnerable from predators like Andrew Bolt

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 5^th, 2014 at 11:50pm

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

What is the fascination with Bolt??
It seems like every time there's a thread like this, some always mentions Bolt or Jones.....Did he steal your tricycle or something?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 6^th, 2014 at 8:52am

re Freediver:

Quote:

Hurt their feelings? What consequences?

There are different levels. If its minor, then usually involves people who disagree with them choose not to associate with them.
If it involves additional physical violence, or demonstratable material damage then either civil or criminal court system can resolve it depending on the nature of the offence.

Quote:

What's with the timing? Because it is the right thing to do. You cannot defend freedom with censorship, you can only create a facade.

You cannot defend freedom with censorship, however, absolute freedom does not equate a fair society. There have to be a balance between the two. Plus, this law in its current format is not about censorship, its about makes it unlawful for someone to publicly "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or a group of people. Which in my opinion is fair.

As to the timing, well may be one day. At the moment, I believe the government should get on with the budget issues as matter of priority. Leave this matter for say Christmas time.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Sprintcyclist on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:19am

hurt feelings are a fact of life.

live with it.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:32am

Re Yadda

Quote:

Of course, what i stated, is only my own perceptions.
I don't 'go to church', ....instead, i read the bible, and fast, and meditate, and i say sorry.

I think this is quiet admirable to live a simple life. Although I cant I agree with fasting (because its health impact), but I can understand that it is only through the pains of fasting, it teaches us about letting go of our material body, that one can learn the true meaning of suffering and be close to God in the process. And saying sorry is about repent, and with it the acknowledgement that everyone, including ourselves are not free from sin.

It is very evident that you are very proficient in the Bible, and as well as the evil parts of Koran. More so than alot of people that I know. Do you have a mentor who help you study? Or rather you have been doing mostly self learning?

So now, after having quoted both from the bible and the Koran about the "evilness" of the Islamic faith. What is your ultimate goal? If say today, you have the power to do any thing in Australia, what would you do about people with Islamic faith.

Quote:

What i have against 'modern' Christianity is....

1/ Too many Christians [i.e. their Christian churches and organisations] today are pro-Palestinian [and therefore they are giving aid to

ISLAM - ISLAM which actively and 'legitimately' persecutes and murders 'Christians' throughout the world, as a doctrine of ISLAMIC faith].

2/ Many Christian churches and organisations today [who have been taken in by ISLAMIST lies] are slandering the Jewish people, and the state

of Israel.

3/ Many Christians may be a member of a Christian church, but they don't / rarely ever read their bible. [when they are being led by men,

where is the spirit of God, in their heart ?]

I choose to separate myself from the bulk of those who refer to themselves, today, as 'Christians'.

I can sort of understand where you come from. But, I believe, we should not put politics into our faith and vice versa. Firstly, the Christians and Pro Palestinian. You see it the wrong way. I see that these Christians are there to help the Palestinian people who are suffering. They speak out about the poor condition that they live in, the lack of future, the lack of rights and as well as issues of violence and conflict. They are, in their perceptive are speaking the truth as well. The same groups would also speak out against the violence that Islamic extremists perpertrated against Jewish Civilians.

In a simplied view, this middle East conflict had been going on for generations. And I believe, in its very core, it is more of a political issue, a political issue about control of land, resources and population. And most people are trapped between this cycle of violence with no real means of escape. If you look down at Modern Christians simply because of you feel that some groups are "pro-Palestinian" and "slandering the Jewish people" - then I am sorry, your understanding of middle East conflict is quiet poor.

Then, there is about people who dont read the bible. Yadda, a robot can recite the bible with 100% accuracy. But does that make that robot Christian? Being a Christian is not only about knowing the bible, but to act with God in your heart. But in your previous posts, you had said:

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

When you say these things (without actually meet any of my friends), did you really say these things with God in your heart? Just imagine, you are one of the lucky few who were able to follow Jesus through his journey. And you look at what Jesus have done in his life. Do you think he will agree or disagree with your words?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:55am

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 8:52am:

re Freediver:

Quote:

Hurt their feelings? What consequences?

tickleandrose,

It is ridiculous to suggest that a government should introduce proscriptive laws, based upon how i feel [my feelings].

Why so ?

Because i am RESPONSIBLE, for how i feel.

If i claim that i am offended to see the sun rise over my neighbours property, should the government insist that my neighbour erect a screen on his property, so that the sight of the rising sun won't offend me ?

Ridiculous !

Conversely, if my neighbour tells me that he knows that the moon is made of green cheese,
but i 'feel' offended, because i know that the moon is made up of a collection of old boots [which people have thrown up there], should the government seek to gag or to prosecute my neighbour,
because i have made it known that i would 'feel' offended to know - that some people promote the idea that the moon is made of green cheese ?

OR,
[SCENARIO] My name is Pinocchio, and my nose is 5 inches long.
Truly! :)
And i always feel humiliated by the fact that my nose is 5 inches long [when everyone else has a nose which is much shorter], so whenever i appear in public, i wear a veil [to cover my face, and to hide my nose!].
Now, if my neighbour discovers that my nose is 5 inches long, and if my neighbour tells people that the reason i wear a veil, is because my nose is 5 inches long, [though he may be, being indiscreet!] is my neighbour humiliating me ?

Surely, feelings like humiliation, anger, fear, insult, offence, are the things which i am choosing to feel ?

e.g.
If i choose to feel happy, am i creating and allowing that feeling, to come into my heart ?

And if the sight of the rising sun offends me, is the 'fault' with the sun [for what i feel] ?

Or is my reaction to the sight of the sun, something which i am responsible for ?

If the sight of the rising sun offends me, doesn't that feeling of 'offence' have its genesis within me [within my own psyche], and isn't that feeling of 'offence', something which is abiding within me ?

p.s.

These ideas which ISLAM encourages [to be 'taken up' within the psyche of a man, as 'LAWFUL'], this is what offends me;

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 11:54am

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:32am:

Re Yadda

......the Christians and Pro Palestinian. You see it the wrong way. I see that these Christians are there to help the Palestinian people who are suffering. They speak out about the poor condition that they live in, the lack of future, the lack of rights and as well as issues of violence and conflict. They are, in their perceptive are speaking the truth as well. The same groups would also speak out against the violence that Islamic extremists perpertrated against Jewish Civilians.

......I am sorry, your understanding of middle East conflict is quiet poor.

tickleandrose,

Thank you for your response, in post #131

I am happy for you to express your opinions.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 6^th, 2014 at 11:56am

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

         " Power" is always raised in this subject and others too, the Feminists are very fond of it, and I reckon it's just b/s.
            Attempting to redress the hurts of a sector of the population by making it about "power" and introducing legislation to deal with this mirage will always warp our society, and thus cause more stress and "victims" than any perceived "problem" it's supposed to "fix" .
            Either we have a Democracy that embraces free speech or we have a nanny state that wants to, and indeed has to, dictate every facet of our lives and behaviour. In other words, a Theocracy as of old, with Idealism as it's "God".
                                          Thought Police next?

   To quote the olds.."Bugger that for a game of soldiers"!!!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 12:04pm

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

[SCENARIO] My name is Pinocchio, and my nose is 5 inches long.
Truly! :)
And i always feel humiliated by the fact that my nose is 5 inches long [when everyone else has a nose which is much shorter], so whenever i appear in public, i wear a veil [to cover my face, and to hide my nose!].
Now, if my neighbour discovers that my nose is 5 inches long, and if my neighbour tells people that the reason i wear a veil, is because my nose is 5 inches long, [though he may be, being indiscreet!] is my neighbour humiliating me ?

Yes, i know, i know!!

Everyone is asking;

"What is an 'inch' ?"

When i was in high school, we had an ink monitor, to fill up the inkwells each morning before class started!!!!!

It was a few years ago.

p.s.
inches, ....are good things!!!!

:)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on May 6^th, 2014 at 12:52pm

My view on such things as defamation etc are long-standing - they should involve a simple definition and be reliant on truth alone as the yardstick for judging a case.

We have a current case around here with the Lard Mayor suing a woman over her comment that he had bullied her in a discussion of an issue. He may well have, but the issue was whether or not this 'defamed' him, or affected his public standing, not whether his actions amounted to bullying.

I sincerely doubt that this would affect his 'public standing' since the voters can judge for themselves.

If also, this 'public standing' was for all equally - as the law requires - why then can a TV station etc vilify a member of the public and not even offer a right of reply or even a follow-up with contrary evidence, as happened with myself once or twice?

It's all just another way for the big boys to bully people, by threatening expensive legal action which is so obscure in its definitions that anything can happen, and there is no way of recovering full costs even if you win.

Should be a $20 fee to apply and a local court hearing based on truth as the yardstick - not multi thousands with barristers and QCs etc.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:02pm

(Yadda) p.s.
inches,    ....are good things!!!!
That rather depends on how many ya got, eh? ;D

(The Knight)
         As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.
      I believe we're almost unique in that, figures, eh? >:(

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm

re Yadda

Quote:

tickleandrose,

It is ridiculous to suggest that a government should introduce proscriptive laws, based upon how i feel [my feelings].

Why so ?

Because i am RESPONSIBLE, for how i feel.

But Yadda, you may have reached a state of mind in which you have become indifferent, and that nothing can make you upset. However, the majority of people in the community do not. When we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person - most of the times, we create an emotional reaction. And if these reactions are persistent and relentless, this will cause material damage to that individual over time - both emotionally and physically. A very close example of this would be the Laws against bullying. If you read up on Brodie's Law - Victoria, you will see how at times, words can cause great harm to others.

Quote:

If i claim that i am offended to see the sun rise over my neighbours property, should the government insist that my neighbour erect a screen on his property, so that the sight of the rising sun won't offend me ?

Ridiculous !

Conversely, if my neighbour tells me that he knows that the moon is made of green cheese,
but i 'feel' offended, because i know that the moon is made up of a collection of old boots [which people have thrown up there], should the government seek to gag or to prosecute my neighbour,
because i have made it known that i would 'feel' offended to know - that some people promote the idea that the moon is made of green cheese ?

The difference is that in the eyes of the law, a reasonable person would not find rising sun, or the thought that moon is made of green cheese offensive. However, a reasonable person would find to insult, humiliate or intimidate based on their race or religion to be an offensive act. There is a very big difference.

Quote:

These ideas which ISLAM encourages [to be 'taken up' within the psyche of a man, as 'LAWFUL'], this is what offends me;

So, it is whats inside a book which offend you. And what did you do with those feelings Yadda? You make statements like:

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

Now, those Modern Christians who are pro-Palestinian - that you looked down to - what did they do despite the fact that they know the exact same thing and having read the exact same text? They go there, often forsaking their family and material wealth, and help those in need - regardless - of their faith. Why?

Because, they know, that they are human just like us. They have feelings, worries and are flesh and blood just like us. And most importantly, they believe that we are all created by God, and that we are all his children.

I believe they are following the words of God.

Quote:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 2:18pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

tickleandrose,

It is ridiculous to suggest that a government should introduce proscriptive laws, based upon how i feel [my feelings].

Why so ?

Because i am RESPONSIBLE, for how i feel.

But Yadda, you may have reached a state of mind in which you have become indifferent, and that nothing can make you upset. However, the majority of people in the community do not. When we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person - most of the times, we create an emotional reaction. And if these reactions are persistent and relentless, this will cause material damage to that individual over time - both emotionally and physically. A very close example of this would be the Laws against bullying. If you read up on Brodie's Law - Victoria, you will see how at times, words can cause great harm to others.

tickleandrose,

I have a very ugly face.

My face is so ugly that some people have told me that they don't wish to see it.

Some people have even told me that they are intimidated, when they see my face!

I understand that i am causing trauma to some people.

Should i be confined to my home, maybe ?

Coz, it does offend some people when i am seen in public.

tickleandrose,

Is there any chance of me suing these people [who have told me that i am too ugly to be seen in public places], coz their words are causing great harm to my 'self image' !

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

The difference is that in the eyes of the law, a reasonable person would not find rising sun, or the thought that moon is made of green cheese offensive.

However, a reasonable person would find to insult, humiliate or intimidate based on their race or religion to be an offensive act. There is a very big difference.

tickleandrose,

I'm a reasonable person, .....at least i consider myself to be, a reasonable person.

tickleandrose,

I know that ISLAMIC holy texts, refer to people like myself as 'the friends of SATAN'!!, because i am not a moslem.

And that those very same ISLAMIC holy texts instruct moslems, that they should fight and enslave and kill me, because i am not a moslem.

And i have seen the evidence [from around the world] of this moslem violence against those who are not moslems.

And i have even seen the evidence of this moslem violence, here in Australia.

THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

tickleandrose,

Should i feel intimidated by moslems - because of what ISLAM teaches them to believe ?

e.g.
IMAGE...

THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

tickleandrose,

IMO, THOSE PLACARDS [above] ARE EXPRESSING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.

tickleandrose,

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

tickleandrose,

IMO, a moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, which teaches moslems that it is 'lawful' [for moslems], to kill those, who do not believe, as they believe.

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

OR,

Do the rights that a reasonable person can enjoy in law, only apply to people who are not me ?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 6^th, 2014 at 3:23pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

These ideas which ISLAM encourages [to be 'taken up' within the psyche of a man, as 'LAWFUL'], this is what offends me;

So, it is whats inside a book which offend you. And what did you do with those feelings Yadda? You make statements like:

[quote]Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

[/quote]

tickleandrose,

Not only did i suggest that;

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

....but i also challenged you to examine whether the declarations which your moslem friends were making to you were true, and if in fact, your moslem friends were even moslems - if they were not adhering to the tenets and the laws of ISLAM.

Because ISLAM is very, very strict, about moslems adhering to the tenets and the laws of ISLAM !

ISLAMIC law....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."i
But tickleandrose, why do these facts about ISLAM cause you so little concern ?

Is it perhaps because your moslem friends have assured you, that they do not belong to that 'the tiny minority of extremists' - who also refer to themselves as moslems ???

How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

"A Study in Muslim Doctrine
...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden,
insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."
http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

Taqiyya
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
google

+++

tickleandrose,

Why is it that people like yourself, continue to refuse to condemn mainstream ISLAM ?

Why is it that people like yourself, refuse to acknowledge that it is mainstream ISLAM which promotes the violence [murder and terror] which we see in the world, that is being effected, by moslems ?

Quote:

How is peace in the society of man achieved, in the real world?

Is peace achieved through the appeasement of bullies and evil men [e.g. Hitler]?
Today, many people appear to believe that peace comes merely from 'wanting it' [i.e. desire], or from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction], in the face of the violence of evil men.

muso,
Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men.

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

And the ethics, of appeasement?

Is the argument of the ethical person, that the 'tolerance' of any wickedness, is a path towards peace?
Well i say that such a imaginings, are pure poppycock!

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.
The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.
That path leads only to slavery, and death.

How is peace achieved, in the real world?
Peace comes through sacrifice, and our willingness to fight for truth, and to fight for what is right[eous].
And, as ugly as the words may sound to someone such as yourself; Peace comes through judgement.

Peace among men comes as a consequence of righteous judgement.
Peace among men comes when wicked men are judged, and when their fellows [other wicked men] come to understand that their wicked actions, will bring judgement upon them.

p.s.
To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good?
But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Knight Errant Sir Grappler on May 6^th, 2014 at 3:30pm

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

tickleandrose,

Should i feel intimidated by moslems - because of what ISLAM teaches them to believe ?

e.g.
IMAGE...

THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

tickleandrose,

IMO, THOSE PLACARDS [above] ARE EXPRESSING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.

tickleandrose,

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

tickleandrose,

IMO, a moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, which teaches moslems that it is 'lawful' [for moslems], to kill those, who do not believe, as they believe.

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

OR,

Do the rights that a reasonable person can enjoy in law, only apply to people who are not me ?

Friends, what we are seeing here is that Neo-Soweto Mohammedan crowd, and friends, it makes me so sick I nearly signed myself into that hospital. It's not enough, friends, that they ride on the Western man's comforts and take their freedoms for granted, they need to carry on as well over that Western oppression there, and that, friends, is downhill for everyone.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm

   Don't you ever give up banging that broken drum Yadda?

      You seem to blithely ignore the simple truth, you're wrong.
There are literally billions of Muslims on this planet, multiple millions of them right on our doorstep in Indonesia and Malaysia alone. Yet where is all this psychotic religious behaviour you claim they have to follow?
   We may not like the way they run their countries or the attitudes they display to some things we hold dear, but the simple fact is that they mostly do just as we do, get on with their individual lives as best they can within the social structure they're born into.
   YES, they have their fundamentalists and their looney fringe, and they have bombs and deaths, but by far the majority of the victims of those are the Muslims themselves.
   They're NOT invading this country or any other, they're NOT beheading Christians or any others, they're NOT launching Jihads at the drop of a hat, in fact they do seem to be rather placid and accepting, don't they?
Your massive posts and wild quotes from their Q'ran prove precisely nothing, other than your own obsessive pre-occupation with them, and your total misunderstanding of their actual way of life.
      Please, give it a rest, it's tedious having to constantly scroll past your irrational page-fillers.

      May the Great Wombat bless and guide you.
                                       ;)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Gnads on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:46pm

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

What a load of shyte ..... no power ::) .... good grief they have their own collective power of being educated & white aboriginals who had access to taxpayer funded legal aid to sue Bolt.

I was racially vilified by a bloke purporting to be an Aboriginal, what redress did or would I have to sue him at tax payers expense?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Rubin on May 6^th, 2014 at 5:40pm

Gnads wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:46pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

The same as the person vilfing you he has no more rights than you. I have no doubt that person that did that you has copped it most their life and it is lesson learnt from our society. I'm not justifying their actions wrong is wrong, let's keep real mate.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 6^th, 2014 at 8:59pm

Quote:

Plus, this law in its current format is not about censorship, its about makes it unlawful for someone to publicly "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or a group of people. Which in my opinion is fair.

How is that not about censorship?

Quote:

As to the timing, well may be one day. At the moment, I believe the government should get on with the budget issues as matter of priority. Leave this matter for say Christmas time.

Ah, wrong time of year?

Quote:

If also, this 'public standing' was for all equally - as the law requires - why then can a TV station etc vilify a member of the public and not even offer a right of reply or even a follow-up with contrary evidence, as happened with myself once or twice?

You may have a case for libel there. They are normally careful to offer a right of reply, particularly on controversial issues. If the merely reported on a conviction or something like that, there's not much you can do.

Quote:

Should be a $20 fee to apply and a local court hearing based on truth as the yardstick - not multi thousands with barristers and QCs etc.

Justice is not cheap. There is no way around this.

Quote:

As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.

Truth and public interest are taken into account in most jurisdictions. If you can demonstrate both (and you pig case would be considered in the public interest) then you would have a solid defence.

Quote:

They're NOT invading this country or any other

Not because they don't want to, but because they would get slaughtered. For most of Islam's history that is exactly what they did, and Muhammed lead the way.

Quote:

I was racially vilified by a bloke purporting to be an Aboriginal, what redress did or would I have to sue him at tax payers expense?

People have taken action on that sort of thing in WA. Not that you should bother. Just get on with your life.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 6^th, 2014 at 9:21pm

(FD)
      Quote:
As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.

Truth and public interest are taken into account in most jurisdictions. If you can demonstrate both (and you pig case would be considered in the public interest) then you would have a solid defence.

            Only if the presiding officer of the court agreed that it was in the public interest, and there's NO guarantee of that, is there?

(FD)
   Quote:
They're NOT invading this country or any other

Not because they don't want to, but because they would get slaughtered. For most of Islam's history that is exactly what they did, and Muhammed lead the way.

      As far as I can recall there were quite extended periods of quiet peace in the history of the Islamic nations, and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least, and certainly less than those of the Christians and Americans, hey?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:33pm

Quote:

and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least

That's because they have been in no position to do so, not out of some kind of benign intent. When they were in a position to do so, they did.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 7^th, 2014 at 12:57am

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

Quote:

and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least

That's because they have been in no position to do so, not out of some kind of benign intent. When they were in a position to do so, they did.

         There's no way you could prove a wild statement like that so I won't ask you to, I'll merely add that I believe you to be wrong, completely wrong. You assume frustrated evil intent without any reason to do so.
         Look you to the Moors in Spain, they ruled there for 800 years and were the most civilized nation in Europe at the time. Literacy was virtually universal at a time when white Europe was exactly the opposite, 98% illiteracy and even the kings etc could rarely read.
         The Moors had Libraries and Universities in abundance and a standard of living that the rest of Europe didn't attain until well into the 19th century!
         They could have easily conquered the rest of Europe at any time but preferred to live in peace, they were tolerant of all other religions and encouraged them all to prosper. Once they were eventually driven out their areas reverted to the effective barbarism of Medieval Feudal Europe.
      That was the story across most of the Islamic world for around a thousand years, hardly a history of the barbaric all-hating religious fanatic society you claim.
      They discovered and introduced science, they brought to Europe their numerals that we use to this day, the concept of zero, compasses, paper, street-lights, and even the concept of breaking meals into courses, beginning with soup and ending with sweets.
         Vicious unthinking killers bent on conquest?
   Think again, you really need to study history a little more, I think you have much to learn.
   8-)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:02am

austranger wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

austranger,

Some moslem apologists will accuse critics of moslems/ISLAM, as stereotyping all moslems as violent and intolerant.

But such counter accusations [by moslems], are usually, merely the moslem community, seeking to project the guilt of their own [endorsement of] violence and bigotry and intolerance, onto their intended victims.

It is an attempt by moslems, to turn the circumstances around, 180 degrees, and to present themselves as the victims of religious persecution.

+++

austranger,

In Australia, we don't persecute moslems, because they are moslems.

In Australia, we 'persecute' moslems when they engage in criminal behaviour.

e.g. #1,
Like plotting to massacre 100's or 1,000's of Australians at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, on Grand Final Day.

Google;
mcg bombing plot by 'terrorists'

e.g. #2,
Like falsely accusing an innocent Australian police officer, of 'racial' harassment/intimidation.

Google;
carnita matthews

Google;
Carnita Matthews false racist complaint against Sydney policeman

THE HARMFUL, MALICIOUS AND DECEITFUL MOSLEM INTENT [against a host community]

In the Carnita Matthews matter, when her false accusations were exposed, Carnita Matthews did not apologise.

But instead she CONTINUED TO LIE, claiming that she, Carnita Matthews, was not the party/the person, who had made the false accusations!

ANOTHER EXAMPLE;

A group of moslems in Sydney, were convicted of plotting to massacre perhaps 100's or 1,000's of Australians.

Quote:

"....Two of their supporters at the back of the public gallery shouted in Arabic, "Be patient, Allah is with you" "

"..The sister for one of the convicted men said...that the sentence is not fair to her community or religion."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-15/five-sydney-men-jailed-over-terrorism-plot/331532
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/australia-5-jihadists-motivated-by-intolerant-inflexible-religious-conviction-sentenced-to-prison-te.html

We are told [it was revealed in court] that the brother of this moslem woman, liked to watch videos of moslems beheading 'infidels' [and now he can't watch them!].

This moslem woman's brother was a part of a plot that intended to murder many non-moslems, HERE IN AUSTRALIA!

But what is this moslem woman's response to Australian courts condemning her brothers violent intentions, and jailing him as a terrorist ???

Does this moslem woman express any contrition or shame, that her brother had intended to murder non-moslems, HERE IN AUSTRALIA! ???

No!

Rather this moslem woman portrays,
1/ that her brother,
2/ ISLAM, and
3/ the broader moslem community,
....are all the real victims!, because it is they, who are being persecuted by Australian laws and by the Australian justice system!!

Does she ever apologise to the Australian community, for what her brother tried to do ?

No!

After the conviction of her brother on terrorism charges, she complains, and shamelessly declares that;

'It's just not fair' - to ISLAM, and "to her community or religion."!!

She declares, 'Australians laws are so unfair!'

She declares, 'You Australians are persecuting us moslems!'

FROM THIS, AND OTHER EXAMPLES, WE SEE THAT ACCORDING TO MOSLEM ~~PROPAGANDISTS~~ PROTAGONISTS;

Any non-moslem who condemns moslem violence and bigotry and intolerance, is 'counter-projected' as being a bigot.

Any non-moslem society which defends itself, from ISLAM's culture of violent Jihad [so as to spread the influence of ISLAM/Sharia], is engaging in 'terrorism' against moslems. [<----- this is an accusation that has been made publicly, by an Indonesian cleric.]

Quote:

From what i know, from my study, of ISLAM's own texts, and doctrines, i would confidently make this statement...
Every good moslem in Australia [and indeed, every good moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems.
Every moslem!
ISLAM is in fact, a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against ALL non-moslems ['unbelievers'].
In my estimation, all good moslems do understand what their religious OBLIGATION is, to ISLAM, and to fellow moslems.
Those assertions i make, may be uncomfortable to some among us, but are based in TRUTH, and the truthful tenents of 'faith' which ISLAM teaches.

+++

Above, Yadda said;

Quote:

In Australia, we dont persecute moslems, because they are moslems.

In Australia, we 'persecute' moslems when they engage in criminal behaviour.

But in moslem majority jurisdictions non-moslems are routinely being persecuted, simply because they are NOT moslems.

Google;
minority persecuted, church destroyed, indonesia

Google;
minority persecuted, church destroyed, malaysia

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:12am

austranger wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

austranger,

I am not falsely accusing ISLAM, nor am i falsely stereotyping moslems, as deceitful, violent and intolerant.

THE FACTS ARE;

ISLAM is a deceitful and violent philosophy.

ISLAM's own foundation texts declare and reveal that fact.

And it is truthful to say that ISLAMIC 'religious' doctrines, teach every moslem, that it is lawful for moslems to resort to, deceit, intimidation, threats of violence, AND, to engage in political violence [terrorism], in their efforts to achieve their political aims and political objectives - for ISLAM.

And, .....moslems choose to be, moslems.

And moslems [even moslems who have the opportunity, to living in a nation like Australia]
.....choose to associate themselves with what ISLAM is, and with what ISLAM promotes in the world.

Who is a moslem ???

A moslem is a person who declares;

"I am a moslem. Allah is my God, and Mohammed is his prophet."

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Who is a moslem ???

Again, a moslem is a follower - of ISLAM.

BANG THE DRUM!

+++

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

Allah's Apostle said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

+++

WHAT SHOULD AUSTRALIA DO ?

WHAT SHOULD AUSTRALIANS DO ?

HOW SHOULD AUSTRALIA 'CONFRONT' [AND PROTECT ITSELF FROM] THE 'OPPORTUNISTIC' AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE, WHICH ISLAM INCULCATES INTO EVERY MOSLEM ?

In my opinion, all Australians should urge the Australian government, to,
1/ make ISLAM a proscribed [banned by law] group in Australia, and,
2/ all of ISLAM's cadres in Australia, need to be either detained or expelled from Australia.

In my opinion, we should seek to have our politicians bring forward legislation in our Australian parliament, to proscribe [ban] the membership of any ISLAMIC group - within Australia.

As a concession, any 'moslem' who is in Australia, and who is willing to publicly renounce ISLAM, should be permitted to remain in Australia.

BUT, if they are unwilling to renounce ISLAM, moslems can arrange to leave Australia, under their own steam, within 6 months.

And there should be serious penalties [e.g. decades in a remote desert goal, and/or subsequent expulsion from Australia], for every person who trespasses against such laws [those laws which declare ISLAM to be a proscribed group] and who remain, surreptitiously, members of an underground ISLAMIC group, within Australia.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Pastafarian on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:15am

Yadda wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:12am:

austranger wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

So on one hand you're essentially arguing for your right to be a bigot whilst simultaneously taking away the right for religious freedom and association. Well done.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:30am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:15am:

So on one hand you're essentially arguing for your right to be a bigot whilst simultaneously taking away the right for religious freedom and association. Well done.

Pastafarian,

Congratulations on your mental gymnastics, and 'contortions', .....and you resultant conclusion.

p.s.
I am happy for you to express your opinions.

Pastafarian,

'....taking away the right for religious freedom...' ?

QUESTION;
Is it culturally OK, for 'new Australians' to murder people [i.e. other Australians],
.....IF MURDER OF 'OTHERS' IS A 'CULTURAL NORM' FOR THEM ?

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.
Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Pastafarian on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:44am

NO its not ok to murder anyone. But then has the guy in the photo actually murdered anyone?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:54am

Meanwhile Christians practice their free speech:

http://heresyofthemonth.typepad.com/.a/6a0133eeb234af970b0154325b5368970c-pi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Pastafarian on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:58am

You arent getting the point True Colours, its ok when Christians practice their right to free speech and threaten to murder people, but dare to be a Muslim and bang you're in trouble.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 7^th, 2014 at 7:20pm

I am yet to see a single placard from any other religion calling for murder. I have seen plenty from Muslims.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 7^th, 2014 at 7:22pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

NO its not ok to murder anyone.

But then has the guy in the photo actually murdered anyone?

Pastafarian,

You seem very certain that this person [this moslem holding the placard], has never, would never, murder anyone.

Is that because you have no doubts [that he would never commit a violent act like murder], when spokesmen for the moslem community declare;

"[ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony."

???

Quote:

Rejecting Terror
Thursday, 11 April 2013

Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent. There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith.

The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace.

It rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewstemplate&catid=82:mcb-news
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012.

Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.

Moslems, protesting on the streets of Sydney, Australia, demanding the right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

......has the guy in the photo actually murdered anyone?

Pastafarian,

Perhaps not.

But it is clear that many confederates of this person, have murdered people.

Dictionary;
confederate = = joined by an agreement or treaty. an accomplice or fellow worker.

IMAGE....

[image above] Here we have a group of 'peace loving' moslems, in Syria, engaging in their glorious religious duty, to rid the world of unbelief.

And do you see how happy these moslems are!!!

What is it that they are holding up ???

Source of image....

THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 7^th, 2014 at 7:27pm

Quote:

There's no way you could prove a wild statement like that so I won't ask you to

Check the history of the Islamic empire. It expanded continually until the breaks were put on it, externally. Muslims have been trying to restart it ever since. Luckily there have been plenty of people around who were willing to make sure they fail.

Quote:

I'll merely add that I believe you to be wrong, completely wrong. You assume frustrated evil intent without any reason to do so.

Muslims have revealed that evil intent right here on this forum. They said it was inevitable. Starting with Israel, going all the way to Spain. A glorious military victory for Islam. That is why the Palestinians must never surrender. They must keep the violence going, because a glorious Muslim victory is just around the corner.

Quote:

They could have easily conquered the rest of Europe at any time but preferred to live in peace

So why did they invade Spain? Why did they try to invade modern day France?

Quote:

Once they were eventually driven out their areas reverted to the effective barbarism of Medieval Feudal Europe.

Spain was the most powerful nation in the world for a while.

Quote:

They discovered and introduced science

'Discovered' science?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 7^th, 2014 at 7:39pm

Victims of Christian Fundamentalists

http://lady4freedom.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/more-victims2.jpg?w=720

Leader of Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, uses his free speech to say "Follow the 10 commandments or I will hack off your body parts!"

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Soren on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:27pm

Africa

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:55pm

FD, I'm not going to discuss this point by point, it's obviously not worth the effort, I'll just answer a couple of yours and make an observation.

         You mistake sarcasm for fact.
The Moors went through an expansionary period, and that's hardly unique to them, is it? Then they were stopped, more by geography than anything else, settled down and built an advanced culture and civilisation.
   They developed science as a distinct branch of knowledge in a manner never before seen, and founded universities to research and teach it. The basis of Spanish power after they were driven out was almost completely due to the remnants of what the Moors had built there, and they slowly ruined that.
      My observation is that with your questions you have demonstrated the intellectual poverty of all such anti-Islamic bigots, you ignore any points you don't like to admit and selectively distort history and and any accomplishments of Islam.
      Your willful prejudice blinds you, to your own loss, it's sad to see that in otherwise normal people at any time, you have my sympathy in that respect. :-/

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by ian on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:22pm

actually, its the Moops, not the Moors.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:01pm

Quote:

The Moors went through an expansionary period, and that's hardly unique to them, is it?

It was part of a several century expansionary period of the early Caliphates. Luckily it came to an end, or we might all be living under Shariah law, whether we like it or not.

Quote:

Then they were stopped, more by geography than anything else

So the Mediterranean didn't stop them crossing from Africa to the Iberian peninsula, but a few hills did? They were stopped by europeans who saw quite clearly that an empire was expanding from the south and about to swallow them.

Quote:

They developed science as a distinct branch of knowledge in a manner never before seen

Crap. For such a long lived and wealthy empire, their contributions are remarkably limited, and did not break the mold of what came before.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by austranger on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:11pm

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Quote:

The Moors went through an expansionary period, and that's hardly unique to them, is it?

It was part of a several century expansionary period of the early Caliphates. Luckily it came to an end, or we might all be living under Shariah law, whether we like it or not.

[quote]Then they were stopped, more by geography than anything else

They developed science as a distinct branch of knowledge in a manner never before seen

Crap. For such a long lived and wealthy empire, their contributions are remarkably limited, and did not break the mold of what came before. [/quote]

Yet more selective picking, and expressions of bigoted opinion without substance, you only further prove my points about bigots, and you're welcome to the last word, it makes no difference to me. 8-)

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:13pm

You are wrong.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:21pm

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Quote:

The Moors went through an expansionary period, and that's hardly unique to them, is it?

It was part of a several century expansionary period of the early Caliphates. Luckily it came to an end, or we might all be living under Shariah law, whether we like it or not.

Nearly all of the Arabian Peninsular came into the Islamic state peacefully. The early caliphates expanded in wars that were aimed at defending the Islamic Arab state, and liberating their neighbours who lived under despot dictatorships. Christians who acted in good-will towards Muslims were left in peace. This is why no Islamic army invaded Ethiopia, despite it only being a few kilometres from Arabia.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Quote:

Then they were stopped, more by geography than anything else

Rather, the Arabs had little interest in lands that were so cold.

Pyrenees in winter:

[/quote]

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Soren on May 8^th, 2014 at 8:59am

True Colours wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

. The early caliphates expanded in wars that were aimed at defending the Islamic Arab state, and liberating their neighbours who lived under despot dictatorships. Christians who acted in good-will towards Muslims were left in peace.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by tickleandrose on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:50am

Re Yadda.

Quote:

You have missed point. No matter how ugly your face may be, it would not cause demonstratable / material damage to others who saw your face. They may feel surprised, bewildered or even shocked. But, no one is going to lose sleep over it, or it making them so depressed that they suicide. It is very different to say, people deliberately, and intentionally insult or humiliate you based on your looks.

Quote:

tickleandrose,
Is there any chance of me suing these people [who have told me that i am too ugly to be seen in public places], coz their words are causing great harm to my 'self image' !

Depends on what they do? The law recognize that different level of offense have different levels of punishment. If they just saying spontaneously that you are too ugly to be seen in public places. Then, you can rightfully demand an apology. However, if it just that, then you are wasting your money on a court case. However, if they are saying this deliberately day after day after day. So much so, that it is causing you to be depressed, despite the fact that you have attempted to mediate with them or avoiding these said people. Or in circumstances where they attempt to affect your personal rights due to your looks. In which case, then if you can demonstrate any material loss - e.g. doctor's bill, sick days at work - with proof - e.g. diary, psychologist support letter - then you may be able to sue and recover those damages.

N.b. very sick over the last few days.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm

Quote:

Nearly all of the Arabian Peninsular came into the Islamic state peacefully.

The first town Muhammed conquered was Medina. It had three large Jewish tribes. Muhammed expelled the first two. With the third, he beheaded every adult male. Then came the pagans. Muhammed "predicted" they would be ethnically cleansed from the area. Guess what happened? In short military career after wiping out the Jews of Medina, Muhammed slaughtered plenty of people.

Quote:

The early caliphates expanded in wars that were aimed at defending the Islamic Arab state

I love this line. It was one of the most militant empires in history, yet it was all in self defense.... How gullible do you think people are? They even crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Southern Spain in self defense. :D

Quote:

Christians who acted in good-will towards Muslims were left in peace.

They were left in subjugation, as were the Jews. Pagans were treated worse.

Quote:

Rather, the Arabs had little interest in lands that were so cold.

Yes they did. They merely failed.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Yadda on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:43pm

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Quote:

The early caliphates expanded in wars that were aimed at defending the Islamic Arab state

LOL

Moslem apologists/spokesmen are true masters of spin, aren't they!!!! ;D

A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain, has declared on its website;

Quote:

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Soren on May 10^th, 2014 at 3:28pm

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by Laugh till you cry on May 10^th, 2014 at 3:59pm

Yadda wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Quote:

The early caliphates expanded in wars that were aimed at defending the Islamic Arab state

LOL

Moslem apologists/spokesmen are true masters of spin, aren't they!!!! ;D

A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain, has declared on its website;

[quote]

Rejecting Terror
Thursday, 11 April 2013

Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent. There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith.

The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace.

It rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewstemplate&catid=82:mcb-news
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656

"[ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony."

;D

Honest!

[/quote]

Yadda has previously exposed itself as a Hasbara shill and bugler for Israel.

Ask your handler for a more clever script!

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 14^th, 2014 at 8:28pm

Is it bigotry to point these things out TC?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 14^th, 2014 at 10:41pm

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Quote:

Nearly all of the Arabian Peninsular came into the Islamic state peacefully.

The first town Muhammed conquered was Medina.

Conquered? With which army did he arrive in Madina with? The historic fact of the matter is that the people of Madina invited him to be their leader. He arrived in Madina with no army, because he had no army at the time. How does a man with no army conquer a place?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

It had three large Jewish tribes. Muhammed expelled the first two. With the third, he beheaded every adult male.

True, but only after continual acts of violence and outrages committed by Jews in the face of years of Muslim tolerance. Muslim tolerance was finally rewarded by treachery when the Jewish inhabitants blatantly aided an invading enemy and attacked the Muslim women's garrison.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Then came the pagans. Muhammed "predicted" they would be ethnically cleansed from the area. Guess what happened?

Except that it never happened. More Freediver falsehoods.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Muhammed slaughtered plenty of people.

Actually, he demonstrated great mercy and forgave nearly all of his enemies even when he had gained the upper hand. Nearly all the pagans that were defeated in battle were let go free. His magnanimity is clearly displayed from his first Battle of Badr, after which, all pagan captives were released, to the last of his battles against pagans when the entire city of Mecca was forgiven and let go free despite years of hostility and aggression against Muslims.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

They even crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Southern Spain in self defense.

Piracy originating in Spain against Africa necessitated this.

Why did Muslims never invade Ethiopia when it was only a few miles from Arabia?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Quote:

Christians who acted in good-will towards Muslims were left in peace.

They were left in subjugation, as were the Jews. Pagans were treated worse.

Yes...if subjugation means, gaining peace and security, having to pay lower tax, becoming free from conscription, and having freedom of religion introduced to your land.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 14^th, 2014 at 10:44pm

Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis' plans for discrimination law

Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has strongly backed the Abbott government's plans to water down race hate laws, describing them as a welcome challenge to "Jewish supremacism" in Australia.

In an explosive submission to Attorney-General George Brandis' review of the Racial Discrimination Act, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Toben congratulated the government for its attempt to rectify what he describes as a "flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests".

His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community, which has warned that the government's plans for Section 18C of the act will open the door to "vilification on a massive scale".

Mr Toben said Senator Brandis – who famously defended people's "right to be a bigot" – had incorrectly claimed the need for reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was about free speech and the conviction of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt under 18C.

"The essence of what the RDA Section 18C is all about and why it needs to be repealed is that the so-called 'Bolt law' is in effect a 'Holocaust' protection law," Mr Toben wrote...

http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denier-frederick-toben-backs-george-brandis-plans-for-discrimination-law-20140513-zrbnx.html?skin=dumb-phone

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 15^th, 2014 at 9:51pm

Quote:

Out of three powerful Jewish tribes, he expelled the first two, and slaughtered the third. That's how.

Quote:

True, but only after continual acts of violence and outrages committed by Jews in the face of years of Muslim tolerance. Muslim tolerance was finally rewarded by treachery

That's right people. Muslims insist that Muhammed turned up with nothing and moved on to slaughtering entire tribes within Medina and waging war against Mecca, within a few years, all out of self defence, and the treacherous Jews were to blame for it all. They expect you to believe this crap.

Quote:

Except that it never happened. More Freediver falsehoods.

It happened and is well documented by Muslims. They are proud of the ethnic cleansing. The signs on the freeway as you drive into Medina - "Muslims only past this point" - are not an accident. They are the heart of Islam. That is Muslims showing you how they really feel. And it started with Muhammed.

Quote:

Actually, he demonstrated great mercy and forgave nearly all of his enemies

By slaughtering the men and riding off on the women?

Quote:

Nearly all the pagans that were defeated in battle were let go free.

Were they free to stay in their own home? Or is this the Islamic version of freedom that you are peddling?

Quote:

Piracy originating in Spain against Africa necessitated this.

Crap. This is just more Muslim victimhood peddling. Muslims can get away with anything. Muslims are never to blame. Their victims are always to blame. Always. Absolutely. ever ever.

Quote:

Yes...if subjugation means, gaining peace and security, having to pay lower tax, becoming free from conscription, and having freedom of religion introduced to your land.

Is slaughtering every adult male peace and security? Is losing all your land and possessions and paying a 50% tax on all you produce a lower tax? Is being beheaded for insulting the prophet or changing your religion freedom of religion? We are speaking English here TC. Please don't use words like freedom when you mean the opposite.

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by True Colours on May 16^th, 2014 at 1:32am

True Colours wrote on May 14^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Quote:

Nearly all of the Arabian Peninsular came into the Islamic state peacefully.

The first town Muhammed conquered was Medina.

Perhaps you could answer this question. Then we can move onto your other lies. With which army did he arrive in Madina with?

Title: Re: Right To Bigotry?
Post by freediver on May 16^th, 2014 at 7:06pm

Who said he arrived with an army? Like all good politicians, he talked his way in first. Then he started killing anyone who disagreed with him. Once he had an army he moved onto slaughtering entire tribes and villages.