Australian Politics Forum - Muslims want to silence and intimidate you

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #30 - May 27^th, 2013 at 9:46pm

Quote:

Well think about it - if someone has secret thoughts of criminality, but never actually carries out those thoughts - you can't exactly present a case against them can you? By "intent" I obviously only meant explicitly stated (and recorded) intent that can be used as evidence in a court - eg a placard calling for people to be beheaded.

A placard that says "behead those who insult Muhammed" (or whatever the standard version is) is not an explicit statement of intent either.

Quote:

Given that context is everything, Its really too hard to concoct a list of hypothetical examples. Its really only practical to take actual cases and judge them on the circumstances from which they arise.

OK then. How about the other Muhammed cartoons, and the video? And what about me saying that Islam is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the modern world?

Quote:

No. Legalising it implies that the state condones this behaviour. As soon as vilification becomes legal, it won't just be something that is merely tolerated, but something that will inevitably be demanded to be defended.

So posting "all Muslims are terrorists" on this forum should be illegal?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #31 - May 27^th, 2013 at 10:18pm

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

A placard that says "behead those who insult Muhammed" (or whatever the standard version is) is not an explicit statement of intent either.

I disagree.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

K then. How about the other Muhammed cartoons, and the video?

I haven't seen them, so I can't judge.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

So posting "all Muslims are terrorists" on this forum should be illegal?

Well vilification really only applies when its publicly stated, and reaches the heart of the people that are being vilified. With all respect for this forum, I would hardly rate it as being very public and far reaching - least of all to the muslim community. Surely the point of anti-vilification laws is to prevent people from feeling vilified. So which muslims would feel vilified by a few trolls on an internet forum? Not me, thats for sure. I think most people are sensible enough to understand that the internet, because of the anonymity it provides, is a magnet for trolls to say things they would never say outside the internet. And its mostly harmless.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #32 - May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am

Quote:

I disagree.

The intention could merely be to advocate for the reintroduction of the death penalty and the criminalisation of blasphemy. Like Abu for example. It would be up to you to prove intent, which you can't.

Quote:

I haven't seen them, so I can't judge.

Can you give any kind of indication of the extent to which you think freedom of speech should be wound back?

Have you seen the bomb cartoon?

Quote:

Well vilification really only applies when its publicly stated, and reaches the heart of the people that are being vilified.

So we should have one set of rules for famous people and another set for everyone else?

Quote:

With all respect for this forum, I would hardly rate it as being very public and far reaching - least of all to the muslim community. Surely the point of anti-vilification laws is to prevent people from feeling vilified.

So preaching racial hatred at a white power rally is not vilification so long as no black people hear it and feel vilified by it?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #33 - May 28^th, 2013 at 1:03pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

The intention could merely be to advocate for the reintroduction of the death penalty and the criminalisation of blasphemy. Like Abu for example. It would be up to you to prove intent, which you can't.

Nonsense. The whole protest was directed specifically at the person(s) responsible for one particular video. The intent of that placard couldn't be clearer.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

Can you give any kind of indication of the extent to which you think freedom of speech should be wound back?

You're not paying attention - I said I support the current laws against vilification.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

Have you seen the bomb cartoon?

Yes.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

So we should have one set of rules for famous people and another set for everyone else?

Not at all. Its not just about Alan Jones and co on the public airwaves. Imagine a workplace in which someone racially abuses a co-worker, which causes other co-workers to start treating the person who got abused in a more negative way. Or someone being threatened or intimidated in a crowded restaurant - in a way that is designed to encourage others to join in the intimidation.

The bigots here on the other hand are not, I believe, specifically singling out muslims in order to make them feel vilified and/or stir up further hatred against them. They are essentially just venting amongst themselves. Or in some cases, just trying to get attention.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

So preaching racial hatred at a white power rally is not vilification so long as no black people hear it and feel vilified by it?

Its not just about feeling vilified - what if one of the people who attended the rally then went and murdered a black person? Its incitement as well. Propagating hate towards vulnerable groups can have two consequences - harassing the people they are vilifying, as well as encouraging others to join in the vilification - potentially making the situation worse.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18234
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #34 - May 28^th, 2013 at 3:23pm

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

2. All muslims hold their prophet Muhammad in the greatest regard, and consider his example as the greatest example to follow

Muslims have low standards if they believe Mohammad set a great example to follow.

He had a 6 year old wife who he porked when she was 9, some might consider it break and enter.
Quote:

Narrated Aisha, (Mohammad's favourite wife, i guess the others were not young enough).

The prophet married her when she was 6 years old and he consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old.
Islamic source-www.sunnah.com/bukhari/67/70

I guess that explains all the child brides in the Islamic world,they are following the example of their prophet,google saudi or yemeni child bride for a few examples.

Mohammad also had a Coptic christian sex slave who gave him his only son Ibrahim, how can someone who owned sex slaves be considered a great example of someone to follow?
If Mohammad did it that makes it halal for muslims to do it.
Quote:

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman,whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married, this is indicated in the Quran and sunnah.

Maariyah al Qibtiyyah was a slave woman who bore her master, the prophet a child.

The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.

Allah knows best.
www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10382/slave

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #35 - May 28^th, 2013 at 3:55pm

Baronvonrort wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

He had a 6 year old wife who he porked when she was 9, some might consider it break and enter.

We don't know how old she was - contemporary research suggests she was well into her teens when the marriage was consumated. This was discussed at more length in another discussion. I noted your deafening silence when my arguments were put forward to counter your slander.

More generally, Islam strictly prohibits forced marriage - as explicity commanded by the prophet.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #36 - May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm

Quote:

Nonsense. The whole protest was directed specifically at the person(s) responsible for one particular video. The intent of that placard couldn't be clearer.

So your positions on the matter are that you must prove intent, and also that it is never possible to prove intent, but that is OK because you don't have to prove intent if the intent is clear? Could you please clarify your intent?

Quote:

You're not paying attention - I said I support the current laws against vilification.

But you have no clue what they are. I am not asking you what the current laws are. I am asking you how far you think our freedoms should be wound back. Please pay attention.

Quote:

Not at all. Its not just about Alan Jones and co on the public airwaves. Imagine a workplace in which someone racially abuses a co-worker, which causes other co-workers to start treating the person who got abused in a more negative way. Or someone being threatened or intimidated in a crowded restaurant - in a way that is designed to encourage others to join in the intimidation.

Are you saying that that reaches more people than a website?

Quote:

The bigots here on the other hand are not, I believe, specifically singling out muslims in order to make them feel vilified and/or stir up further hatred against them. They are essentially just venting amongst themselves. Or in some cases, just trying to get attention.

So it is OK to vilify people, so long as you vilify lots of people and try to draw as much attention as possible while doing so?

Quote:

Its not just about feeling vilified - what if one of the people who attended the rally then went and murdered a black person? Its incitement as well.

Let's stick to vilification for the moment. That alone is murky enough.

Quote:

We don't know how old she was - contemporary research suggests she was well into her teens when the marriage was consumated.

By contemporary research Abu means using an absurdly convoluted way to interpret old facts in a new way (several of which include the word "approximately"), in order to avoid using the historical evidence (from the child bride herself) which states quite clearly she was six years old when her father married her off to the old man next door.

Quote:

More generally, Islam strictly prohibits forced marriage - as explicity commanded by the prophet.

Anyone who thinks that it is OK to marry off your six year old daughter to a dirty old man, so long as she does not have to be dragged kicking and screaming down the aisle, is a pedophile enabler.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #37 - May 28^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

So your positions on the matter are that you must prove intent, and also that it is never possible to prove intent, but that is OK because you don't have to prove intent if the intent is clear? Could you please clarify your intent?

No. This is where I play your little game of quote what i actually say. For example when did I ever say it is never possible to prove intent?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

But you have no clue what they are

Yes you said that before - but you never elaborated when I asked you to.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

I am not asking you what the current laws are. I am asking you how far you think our freedoms should be wound back. Please pay attention.

FD let me explain: in order to "wind back" our freedoms, there would need to be changes made to the law. I am supportive of the laws remaining as they are - therefore I am not in favour of winding anything back. If you spent less time being a smarty pants, you might have figured that out.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

So it is OK to vilify people, so long as you vilify lots of people and try to draw as much attention as possible while doing so?

Nope. Again less smarty pants. Your just sounding silly now.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Let's stick to vilification for the moment. That alone is murky enough.

That is vilification FD. For example:

Quote:

NSW anti-discrimination law defines vilification as a public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people because of the above characteristics [including race, nationality, ethno-religious origin etc].

The vilification law only covers acts that are in public. It does not cover acts that are not public, for example abuse over a back fence that no-one else can hear.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_vilification#what

Thus incitement has everything to do with vilification. And furthermore, it has to be public - as I stated before.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #38 - May 28^th, 2013 at 7:20pm

Quote:

No. This is where I play your little game of quote what i actually say. For example when did I ever say it is never possible to prove intent?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

How can you ever prove intent?

Exactly my point.

Quote:

Yes you said that before - but you never elaborated when I asked you to.

Because I don't want to sidetrack this thread. It is hard enough to get a straight answer out of you. I did suggest you start another thread on the issue. To suggest that it is illegal to publish the Muhammed cartoon is simply absurd and I find it hard to believe you made this argument as anything but a diversion from your desire to destroy freedom of speech.

Quote:

FD let me explain: in order to "wind back" our freedoms, there would need to be changes made to the law. I am supportive of the laws remaining as they are - therefore I am not in favour of winding anything back. If you spent less time being a smarty pants, you might have figured that out.

What you are advocating is different to Australian law, hence my suggestion that instead of trying to change the topic to what Australian law is, you simply say what you think it should be.

Quote:

Nope. Again less smarty pants. Your just sounding silly now.

You are sounding silly. I am just highlighting the fact.

Quote:

Thus incitement has everything to do with vilification. And furthermore, it has to be public - as I stated before.

Did you notice that your definition of vilification left out religion?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #39 - May 28^th, 2013 at 8:12pm

Oh good, time for the next installment of FD tying himself in knots trying to make gandalf sound silly.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

gandalf wrote Yesterday at 8:31pm:
freediver wrote Yesterday at 7:52pm:
How can you ever prove intent?

Exactly my point.

Oh dear me FD - way to misunderstand a point. I was specifically talking about your scenario of secretly thinking about violence, but not actually carrying out violence. I believe I even spelled out the absurdity of trying to prove a secret thought. Advertising that you want to commit violence to the world is sliiiiiiightly different - and demonstrates pretty clear intent.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

o suggest that it is illegal to publish the Muhammed cartoon is simply absurd

Not at all. But as I always stress, its the context that matters. Newspapers simply publishing them to illustrate what the controversy was over is clearly not vilifying. However someone publishing it for sinnister purposes in the context of a wave of anti-islamic sentiment in which muslims were being attacked in the street (for example) - is obviously an entirely different matter.

Put simply, a blanket statement like claiming it is "absurd" to think that publishing the cartoons could ever be classed as vilification - is the most absurd thing to say of all.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

What you are advocating is different to Australian law

And how do you figure that?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

Did you notice that your definition of vilification left out religion?

I did actually. However the racialisation of islam is well known - and the phenomenon we know as islamophobia is classic racism . Thus attacks on muslims will never be on muslims who are white/anglo-saxon - it will be against people who "look" muslim - brown skin, dark hair, speak arabic etc. It is classical racism. Thats why you get people in Australia using "Lebanese" or "arab" and "muslim" interchangeably - even though most muslims in Australia are not Lebanese (or of Lebanese origin). Outgroup homogeneity - its part and parcel of any form of racism.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #40 - May 28^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

Quote:

Not at all. But as I always stress, its the context that matters. Newspapers simply publishing them to illustrate what the controversy was over is clearly not vilifying. However someone publishing it for sinnister purposes in the context of a wave of anti-islamic sentiment in which muslims were being attacked in the street (for example) - is obviously an entirely different matter.

How would you prove these "sinister purposes"?

Quote:

And how do you figure that?

Like I said, start another thread if you want to discuss the issue. It is an interesting topic, but it is not the same topic as what you think the law should be, which is what I am trying to ask you, despite your persistent efforts at deflection.

Quote:

I did actually. However the racialisation of islam is well known - and the phenomenon we know as islamophobia is classic racism .

No it isn't. Abu for example liked to tell everyone how white he is. It didn't stop anyone criticising him or mocking him.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you Reply #41 - May 28^th, 2013 at 9:07pm DP
Back to top	« Last Edit: May 28^th, 2013 at 9:13pm by polite_gandalf » A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you Reply #42 - May 28^th, 2013 at 9:08pm DP
Back to top	« Last Edit: May 28^th, 2013 at 9:14pm by polite_gandalf » A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #43 - May 28^th, 2013 at 9:11pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

How would you prove these "sinister purposes"?

Use a bit of imagination for once FD.

Picture racist/islamophobic newspaper demanding that all muslims be interned/harassed/deported etc on the basis that they are "all terrorists" - then insert Muhammad picture with bomb in turban here.

Just off the top of my head.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Like I said, start another thread if you want to discuss the issue.

I don't need to start another thread - because what I am advocating is exactly the same as the current Australian laws. I'd just like you to explain how you think its not.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

but it is not the same topic as what you think the law should be, which is what I am trying to ask you

How much more clearly can I say I think the law should be exactly what it currently is? What exactly are you confused about FD?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Abu for example liked to tell everyone how white he is. It didn't stop anyone criticising him or mocking him.

Umm.. and that proves what exactly?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48830
At my desk.

Re: Muslims want to silence and intimidate you
Reply #44 - May 28^th, 2013 at 9:38pm

Quote:

Use a bit of imagination for once FD.

Unfortunately you cannot submit your imagination as evidence in court.

Quote:

Picture racist/islamophobic newspaper demanding that all muslims be interned/harassed/deported etc on the basis that they are "all terrorists" - then insert Muhammad picture with bomb in turban here.

Wouldn't the cartoon be kind of irrelevant to the issue in this case? It's like saying it should be illegal to tease a person while beating them to death.

Quote:

I don't need to start another thread - because what I am advocating is exactly the same as the current Australian laws.

No it isn't.

Quote:

I'd just like you to explain how you think its not.

No problem. Start another thread if you are interested. As far as I can tell this is just another deflection on your part.

Quote:

How much more clearly can I say I think the law should be exactly what it currently is? What exactly are you confused about FD?

It is confusing because you are contradicting yourself at the same time as using these self contradictions as an excuse for not answering the question. I am not going to pay some lawyer thousands of dollars to find out what your opinion is, only to discover that you had no clue and were just giving this non-answer to avoid saying what you really think. Whether your view happens to be exactly the same as current law is irrelevant. I am asking you what your view is, not what Australian law is. You are getting worse than Abu with your deflections.

And just so you are aware, you have no clue at all what Australian law is. You don't even know how to find out.

Quote:

Umm.. and that proves what exactly?

That it is not about racism. It is about opposition to an ideology that is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the modern world.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged