Karnal wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 4:07pm:

Or Paki Bvggers.

Soren wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 4:59pm:


What dishonest crap. Abbott and Brandis caved in to clear majority opinion, led by prominent non-muslims.

As I keep saying to FD, the mainstream muslim and non-muslims were hand in hand on this issue. You and FD just can't handle the fact that you two are clearly out of step with mainstream non-muslim opinion on this issue - prompting you to come up with limp wristed and clearly dishonest responses like this.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:


A key factor in this respect has been the precise shape of the Liberals’ electoral triumph last September, when it achieved its strongest performance in Sydney since 1975. This has brought the party’s parliamentary representation into contact with constituencies it might hitherto have felt comfortable ignoring. Among the gains last year were two seats with respective histories going back to 1922 and 1949 which the Liberals had never won before — Reid, where Labor’s John Murphy was unseated by Craig Laundy, and Banks, where Daryl Melham’s 23-year parliamentary career was brought to an end by David Coleman. Also in the Liberal fold for the first time since 1983 is the southern Sydney seat of Barton, where Nick Varvaris sits on the party’s slimmest margin after prevailing by 489 votes.

Reid, Barton and Banks will all be on the front line when the next election is held in 2016, and they respectively rank fourth, eighth and 16th out of the country’s 150 electorates for the number of residents identifying as Muslim. Before the election, Labor’s lock on the top 25 most strongly Muslim electorates was disturbed only by the highly marginal seat of Swan in the strongly Liberal state of Western Australia.

Another Sydney outlier is John Howard’s old seat of Bennelong, which ranks second only to Banks for residents of Chinese ancestry, and which until last year had the distinction of being the least “white” electorate held by the Coalition. While Bennelong is presently held for the Liberals by John Alexander on a margin of 7.8%, John Howard’s experience in 2007 means there is little chance that the party will lose sight of its long-term vulnerability.

It is obviously no coincidence that all four of the aforementioned MPs were associated with disquiet within the party over 18C. Coleman was reportedly behind the secret drafting of a more palatable alternative proposal, and was said to have been supported in the endeavour by Alexander and Varvaris. In response to yesterday’s backflip, Laundy expressed his relief while boasting that his electorate was “the second most multiculturally diverse seat in federal Parliament”.

Soren, you appear ignorant that Islam has had a long history of a belief in Freedom of Speech.  It's intolerance of it is a more recent development and goes with the increasing strain of intolerance which has grown up within Islam in the last 200 years - largely, I'd suggest in reaction to encroachment from the Christian West on it's territory and culture.

Back in the early days of Islam:
Quote:

[Source]

I would suggest no society has ever had true Freedom of Speech, Soren, all have placed limits and continue to do so, on the basis of limiting inappropriate and perhaps even dangerous commentary:

Adamant wrote on Oct 12^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:


I did, Adamant.   Sometimes you won't get an answer you like or desire.  I suggest you learn to deal with your disappointment.   

freediver wrote on Oct 12^th, 2014 at 8:15pm:


"mainstream" virtually all of western civilization expressed a clear disgust with the Muhammad cartoons, and said they should not have been published. When asked they offered a grudging support for the right to publish them. What surveys do you have of, say, the muslim community in Australia on this matter? As far as I know they haven't been done. About the only thing we can safely assume is that they are disgusted with the cartoons - just like the rest of society. But since we don't have any surveys of Australian muslims attitudes on whether they think people should have the right to publish them, you can't make any judgements about them on that front. All we have is beheading placards and such - which everyone agrees is representative of only a tiny minority of the muslim community.

What we also have is surveys from the 18c debate, which I have posted before, that show massive majorities of Australian society who oppose removing the words "offend" and "insult" on the basis of race, nationality or ethnicity.

This is all we need to expose your rank hypocricy - here we have a massive majority of our community wanting to retain legal provisions against mere "insults" and "offense", and what response to we get from our resident crusader for freeeeedom?

1. Its all the muslims fault
2. Such a thumping reaction from the community actually indicates (wait for it...) the communities innate love of freedom.... somehow.

Soren wrote on Oct 12^th, 2014 at 8:57pm:


So, Soren you're denying the historical record?   

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12^th, 2014 at 1:15pm: