polite_gandalf wrote on May 27^th, 2013 at 10:18pm:


Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.  Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."


I feel threatened and vilified by these Koranic words and it's really piercing me to the core. Does that make me an Islamophobe?

Please explain.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:


<facepalm>

we are at an impasse then. I say the law *SHOULD* be what the law already is. If that is not clear enough, then I support a law against vilification on the basis of race, culture and ethno-religious origin. I can't be any more specific without giving actual examples - which I already have with the restaurant, workplace and cartoon publishing scenarios. I even gave you examples of what is *NOT* vilification, eg bigots on an internet forum and newspapers publishing offensive cartoons for informational purposes only.

Although its forbidden in this thread, I would still like to know what you think I am misguided on vis-a-vis the law. I think it might help us get past this impasse.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:


Setting out to troll me is bad enough - but you could at least take note of what I actually write.

|dev|null wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:


Set yourself to work, genius and show us the comparisons, the 'very similar language' dot-point by dot-point as listed by Soren.

Put up or shut up, troll. 

FD in the interests of getting this discussion out of 2nd gear, perhaps we could start by *YOU* providing an adequately detailed/specific explanation of

a) the limitations to freedom of speech under Australian law (particularly in relation to vilification)

and

b) one or two examples of these limitations in practice.

I'm frankly getting tired of trying to second guess what you will accept as a satisfactory explanation - so why don't we start from what you consider acceptable, and maybe I can go from there?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:


FFS - can you please stop importing discussion from another thread? Its very confusing. Its bad enough starting a million different threads on the same topic.

I'll wait till you have something remotely sensible to say before I bother to respond FD.

Wonderful to watch this develop.

Congratulations to you both!

'Tis a pity gandalf and Brian Ross were not on opposing sides.

Now THAT would be something to watch. 

I suggest you give some examples of what you think should be illegal. The example should consist of something more than regurgitating what you read in a pamphlet prefaced by "in a restaurant". A real example would be good. The lady who carried the beheading placard was a great example, but you seem to have changed your mind on that one, on the grounds that naive people are above the law, especially females. You also came close with the cartoon example. You ended up giving a specific example of who should be allowed to publish it, but not of who should be banned from publishing it. Some more hints:

* who would have to say it?
* what would they actually have to say?
* in what context would they have to say it?