freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:15am:


Holocaust denial is unlawful in this country - the Attorney General himself said so. Anyone who has tried to promote it in the public sphere has been hauled off to the High Court and gagged. David Irving was banned from entering Australia to promote his holocaust denial.

You simply got this one wrong FD - just like you were wrong about there being more Aussie muslims fighting for ISIS than the ADF.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:15am:


Yes, I've come to learn that attempting to explain a more nuanced position that isn't the completely out-of-touch over-simplistic black and white view of it is, in FD world, "running away" from it.

Whereas on planet earth, Gandalf has patiently laid out his position on the issue which takes into account the importance of finding a balance between rights to free speech and rights to not be vilified or intimidated. Unlike FD who refuses to even acknowledge the real risk of discrimination and prejudice becoming culturalised, Gandalf understands that the issue is never simple, and that a nuanced approach to the issue is required.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:15am:


Indeed - and has it got through yet that the upshot of it all was that a huge majority of Australians ended up on the side of restricting freedoms to protect against vilification - and even mere
offense? I That puts the wider Australian community in the muslim category according to your logic. I believe I've mentioned this rather relevant point about 4 times already with no response.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:15am:


Wow FD - forgive me if I'm just totally bowled over by the hypocricy here.

I must have missed all the passionate protests by you and all the other 'freedom loving' non-muslims against the raft of anti-terror laws that are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen - and should be top of the list of concerns for anyone purporting to be interested in our values and freedoms. Did you even notice that the laws went through? I barely did, because there was barely a peep of opposition to it - certainly not from the mob who are so busy grandstanding about the threat posed by the muslim community.

Does that make the wider Australian community freedom hating muslim?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


Good point FD. Piracy is also illegal. Yet I pirate movies just about every day - without punishment. If you'd like I can send an email to whatever authorities you like informing him that I download movies illegally - every day, just to test this theory.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


Friedrick Toben.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:

'
Actually, you haven't indicated at all that you want this FD. This is a good opportunity for you to clearly articulate what measure you think should be in place to protect against vilification and discrimination - for once.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


Then at least explain to me how you think the 18c debate somehow demonstrated the wider non-muslim communities' love for free speech - even though it clearly demonstrated that most people are in favour of restricting free speech in the interests of combating vilification. And explain to me why this demonstration doesn't make the wider non-muslim community just as guilty as the muslims of "chipping away" at our freedoms "at every opportunity".

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


Do you consider the anti-terror laws that have just passed an egregious threat to our freedoms? More so than the threat posed by the Australian muslim community?

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:42pm:


Baron I posted this on 3/10/14

Here you go Gandalf, a veritable plethora of Shiite by the Shiite's is available on the website. They wanted  blasphemy of the Mo made an offence under the UN. If the stupid crap had been agreed to all Muslims would have become blasphemers! Just shows the stupidity of Muslims/Islam. For instance you do believe Jesus was the son of God/Allah don't you?
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/home/?lan=en

It appears that not one of the believers are...

Believers... They did not look at the website...they did not accept that what was on the website or they are unable to comprehend what was on the website.

Ignorance is bliss and they are blissfully ignorant. 

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


Presumably there is some technicality that allows him to keep that web page - as long as he doesn't go out and promote it - like what landed him in prison in 2009.

Put this in the me illegally downloading movies basket if you like, either way there really is no argument for claiming that holocaust denial is freely allowed in Australia - we know you can be gaoled for it, a prominent international denier has been banned from entering the country to talk about it, and our own AG has assured everyone loud and clear that holocaust denial comes under racial vilification - and is therefore unlawful. Whatever technicality you can find that allows holocaust denial to still exist here, the fact is our own government insists that it is unlawful with no howls of outrage from mainstream Australia for this egregious attack on our freedoms. You should be condemning mainstream Australia for this, yet instead here you are spinelessly apologising for it. Strange.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


You are. Its a simple statement of fact that you are out of step with mainstream Australia on the freedom issue. You just conceded this in your last post on the sole example you have been able to come up with.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


uhuh. So we have an issue on which the mainstream of Australia is, by your own concession, in favour of chipping away at our freedoms - and you continue to insist it is an example of how the mainstream loves our freedom. 

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


I gave you a link, read it.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:


The massive difference I pointed out to you already, Brain, is Muslims want to introduce new STATUTE law to ban criticism of Islam everywhere.

On the other hand, Pell used an EXISTING common law precedent on blasphemy or obscenity under the Summary Offences Act (both tacks were unsuccessful).

Alo very significantly, nobody rioted and Piss Christ remained on display. Nobody rioted and nobody was killed. The judgment means under common law that if an artist created a Piss Mohammed work, it could be exhibited without fear of LEGAL prosecution.

That Muslim would burn down the joint, hunt the 'artist' and Australian Embassies around the world would also be destroyed goes without saying.


If obscure Danish cartoon can do that, what do you think would happen if Piss Mohammed went on display? Would the consequences b very different from the Piss Christ bruhaha?

The Organisation of islamic Cooperation, the largest Muslim organisation wants to introduce a woldwide ban on criticism of religion.
Pell was not introducing a new law, get that through your thick skull. He used existing common law and the obscenity laws, both unsuccesfully. And that was the end of it. They accepted the legal judgement.



What would happen if Piss Mohammed or Piss Koran  was exhibited?
Death and destructions.
Why?
Because not all religions are the same.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Why the hell would I condemn anyone seeking legal redress within the legal system of Australia?
Are you out of your mind?


And muslims would go apeshit over Piss Mohammed or Piss Koran. They go apeshit for a lot less.