Quote:


You said the jury is still out. WTF does that mean?

Quote:


Is this an endorsement of Australian law, or are you saying the outcome is arbitrary, so long as you do the right paperwork? Given that you have no clue what Australian law is on the matter, this hardly clarifies the issue either.

Quote:


I cannot prove a negative Gandalf. If you say something stupid and people call you an idiot, it does not restrict your freedom to say stupid things. If you think it does, you will have to epxlain how.

Quote:


It is not illegal.

How about instead of telling us what you think the law is you tell us what you think it should be?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


I don't know what you are getting at - holding a quran is obviously not showing any violent intent.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Well I guess you'd have to prove that was the case.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Of course. It would be un-Australian too, and I would oppose any such move. Though I'm not aware of any such moves in Australia - are you?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Vilification should be and is illegal. Thats my opinion, and is the opinion of most Australians. Defining what this actually means in practice can be difficult. If I just take the bomb-in-turban Muhammad cartoon, I judge it to be vilifying using the following logic:

1. The statement "All muslims are terrorists" - is vilification
2. All muslims hold their prophet Muhammad in the greatest regard, and consider his example as the greatest example to follow
3. Therefore depicting the prophet as a modern day terrorist - is tantamount to saying all muslims aspire to be terrorists.

Just my opinion though - no doubt there will be different views.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:


Wasn't I clear enough? Its one in the same.

So how did I go in this interrogation FD? Did I pass? Have I proved my loyalty? Am I a worthy human being? 

Quote:


It has lots of violent bits in it.

Quote:


How can you ever prove intent?

Quote:


Abu supported that sort of thing, but wasn't "actively" pursuing it.

Quote:


It is a fairly nebulous statement. You would have a hard time showing that most Australians agree with you.

Quote:


What else do you think should be banned? Any of the other Muhammed cartoons? What about the youtube video? And what about me saying that Islam is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the modern world?

Also, to what extent does context play a role? You suggested that intent is important. Does that mean that what people say cannot be judged solely on the content? That is, two people could say the exact same thing, and one would be breaking the law and the other not?

Quote:


If someone actually said this, what would you suggest is the appropriate punishment?

Quote:


I appreciate the straight answers.

I am interested in the issue of what Australian law currently is, but don't want to side track this thread with it. I encourage you to start another thread. I might, if I ever get round to looking into it.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:


I disagree.

My local imam for example teaches that the "global Ummah" is a myth, and pursuing it misses the point. The "ummah" is simply any local muslim community - regardless of whether its in a muslim majority country or not. It doesn't matter. As long as muslims are free to worship and enjoy basic human rights (as they do in Australia), then that is all the "Ummah" they need.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:


Love it! This is pure genius  - love free speech and free exchange of ideas and views as long as Mohammed is not criticised because that amounts to criticising every Muslim and bingo! blanket  vilification on religious grounds!

Even reading out loud from the Koran in a church is vilification, provided there is giggling. Anyone who laughs at Mohammed laughs at every Muslims and that's vilification.





"Anyone else feels like a giggle when I mention my fwiend...  Muhammad .... Ibn `Abd Allāh  ....  Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib ?? Do you find it wrisible?

But enough of this wroudy-wrebel, sniggewing behaviour!"

polite_gandalf wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:


You're dissembling. If, then, that word were to be translated into Islamic doctrine, which would describe it - kitman or taqiyya?

While your local imam dismisses the idea of a global Ummah, he then maintains that a local Ummah is the ideal - for muslims in a local area. Is that your complete answer?

While we, on a local level, may question your own allegiance to our social laws/mores, what are the ultimate aims of Islam, of which you are a part?

All over the globe, are muslims so marginalised? Like the blacks that your religion radicalises and then discards?

Make no mistake, it is not muslims we fear, it is Islam. Which, as muslims, in all your different interpretations of the Word, you revere - often to the cost of your own people's suffering.

This nay-saying of, "Oh, it wasn't us, it was them, those bloody radicals." It all breaks down when Islam becomes the target.

We see what Islam is capable of, even against it's own adherents. As kafirs, we know what's in store.

When your imam starts honestly preaching 'love thy neighbour', you'll fit in just fine. Until then ....

No hate exists in my heart, but I would be remiss in my duties as a father if I could not answer questions asked by my children in the future.

Wars are often the end-result of raised voices.