Question Soren, what is the thread about?  Religion and free speech?   I have shown a clear, recent case where a Christian church attempted to impose its religious views on the issue of freedom of speech.    Why do you find that so hard to accept that it happened and what it's implicatins are in the context of the claims made about Islam and the issue of freedom of speech?

Why not simply declare that this thread, like all the rest are really intended to be a hatchet job on Muslims and their religion?   Then you can cook up as much preposity to go with your bombasity and we can all give up and leave you to it!   

Quote:


Crap. 18c specifically protects 'serious' attempts. The government has no place telling us what opinions we are allowed to have and express about historical events or historical figures. What (I hope) Brandis means is that anyone stupid enough to push that barrow is inevitably going to get themselves into trouble for hate speech. Either that or he is simply wrong.

One of the most effective attacks people could make on the Jewish community is that they have successfully outlawed opinions about historical events. In contrast with the Muslim community, the Jewish community is smart enough to see that as a problem - not just because it paints them as sinister puppet-masters, but because they value freedom of speech itself. The Muslim community on the other hand cannot even comprehend the problem, because they see the situation through the lens of an alien set of values.

Quote:


Because you keep running away. You refuse to say what it is. You offer us platitudes about holding hands with mainstream Australia. You offer us excuses and justifications for your views. You offer us everything except what your views actually are. You are not that different from Abu after all.

Quote:


Crap. The 18c debate was framed as a freedom of speech issue. The Muhamed video debate was framed as a freedom of speech issue - including by Barak Obama. Non-Muslims utter the words freedom of speech whenever it becomes necessary, and often when it isn't. Muslims, including leaders of the Australian Muslim community remain devoutly silent on the issue of freedom of speech in the face of egregious and effective attacks on freedom of speech by Muslims.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 6:40am:


Annie, do you not think this thread is about freedom of speech? Even you acknowledged that Muslims have been effective in scaring people into self censorship, and that this is a bad thing. Isn't it a bit of spineless victimhood-mongering to then turn around and insist people only raise the issue as a hatchet job against Muslims?

I say 'even you' because Gandalf keeps trying to paint both himself and the Muslim community as holding hands with mainstream Australia on the issue.

So if other people complain about the loss of freedom, it is legitimate, but when I do it, it is a hatchet job on Muslims? Can you find a single example of someone complaining about self censorship regarding Muhammed that you don't consider a hatchet job? Gandalf was tasked with finding an Australian Muslim community leader complaining about it. He accepted, but failed. I task you with finding a non-Muslim complaining about it in a sufficiently apologetic tone.

Even I complained about it. You know it because you bring it up. There's your example.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:55am:


This thread is a hatchet job because you have an agenda. It's a hatchet job when taken in the context of your weird obsessive views of Islam. It's a hatchet job when viewed that it will be used as fodder for your wiki, which contained a shitload of misinformation a couple of years ago and probably still does. I think you have gone from genuinely caring about freedom of speech to viewing it as a tool to vilify Islam and Muslims.

NEW YORK -- As anti-American protests continue in Islamic nations against a U.S.-made film that mocks the Muslim prophet, the leader of the world's largest Islamic organization met with United Nations leaders this week to condemn violence over the film and call for a ban on insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

"Freedom of speech is one thing, but usage of your freedom should not be to offend others or advocate hate speech or provoke people to violence," Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said an interview with The Huffington Post."The right of demonstration should not be used to kill people or to put fire to buildings or to offend others by burning flags," said Ihsanoglu, who is from Turkey. "So we should not abuse the freedom of demonstration and we should not abuse the freedom of others.

"In a separate interview, the Associated Press reported that Ihsanoglu called for a ban on insults against the Islamic prophet. "If the Western world fails to understand the sensitivity of the Muslim world, then we are in trouble," he told the AP.

He said provocative insults are "a threat to international peace and security and the sanctity of life."The OIC, which is a non-voting observer to the U.N., is the second largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N. and counts among its members 57 Islamic states, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. Based in Saudi Arabia, it has lobbied the U.N. for years to support an international anti-blasphemy law, though it's unclear how one would be enforced

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 8:30am:

Yeah, to call for a ban on it when it comes to the criticism of Islam and ridiculing of Mohammed.

And not some obscure google sheik but the leader of the world’s biggest islamic organisation.