Australian Politics Forum - Right To Bigotry?

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21655
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #135 - May 6^th, 2014 at 12:04pm

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

[SCENARIO] My name is Pinocchio, and my nose is 5 inches long.
Truly!

And i always feel humiliated by the fact that my nose is 5 inches long [when everyone else has a nose which is much shorter], so whenever i appear in public, i wear a veil [to cover my face, and to hide my nose!].
Now, if my neighbour discovers that my nose is 5 inches long, and if my neighbour tells people that the reason i wear a veil, is because my nose is 5 inches long, [though he may be, being indiscreet!] is my neighbour humiliating me ?

Yes, i know, i know!!

Everyone is asking;

"What is an 'inch' ?"

When i was in high school, we had an ink monitor, to fill up the inkwells each morning before class started!!!!!

It was a few years ago.

p.s.
inches, ....are good things!!!!

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83994
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #136 - May 6^th, 2014 at 12:52pm

My view on such things as defamation etc are long-standing - they should involve a simple definition and be reliant on truth alone as the yardstick for judging a case.

We have a current case around here with the Lard Mayor suing a woman over her comment that he had bullied her in a discussion of an issue. He may well have, but the issue was whether or not this 'defamed' him, or affected his public standing, not whether his actions amounted to bullying.

I sincerely doubt that this would affect his 'public standing' since the voters can judge for themselves.

If also, this 'public standing' was for all equally - as the law requires - why then can a TV station etc vilify a member of the public and not even offer a right of reply or even a follow-up with contrary evidence, as happened with myself once or twice?

It's all just another way for the big boys to bully people, by threatening expensive legal action which is so obscure in its definitions that anything can happen, and there is no way of recovering full costs even if you win.

Should be a $20 fee to apply and a local court hearing based on truth as the yardstick - not multi thousands with barristers and QCs etc.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

austranger

Gold Member

Offline

Opinionated Sod

Posts: 1506
adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #137 - May 6^th, 2014 at 1:02pm

(Yadda) p.s.
inches, ....are good things!!!!
That rather depends on how many ya got, eh? Grin

(The Knight)
As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.
I believe we're almost unique in that, figures, eh? Angry

Back to top

Any day with a smile in it is a good day

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4010
Gender: female

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #138 - May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm

re Yadda

Quote:

tickleandrose,

It is ridiculous to suggest that a government should introduce proscriptive laws, based upon how i feel [my feelings].

Why so ?

Because i am RESPONSIBLE, for how i feel.

But Yadda, you may have reached a state of mind in which you have become indifferent, and that nothing can make you upset. However, the majority of people in the community do not. When we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person - most of the times, we create an emotional reaction. And if these reactions are persistent and relentless, this will cause material damage to that individual over time - both emotionally and physically. A very close example of this would be the Laws against bullying. If you read up on Brodie's Law - Victoria, you will see how at times, words can cause great harm to others.

Quote:

If i claim that i am offended to see the sun rise over my neighbours property, should the government insist that my neighbour erect a screen on his property, so that the sight of the rising sun won't offend me ?

Ridiculous !

Conversely, if my neighbour tells me that he knows that the moon is made of green cheese,
but i 'feel' offended, because i know that the moon is made up of a collection of old boots [which people have thrown up there], should the government seek to gag or to prosecute my neighbour,
because i have made it known that i would 'feel' offended to know - that some people promote the idea that the moon is made of green cheese ?

The difference is that in the eyes of the law, a reasonable person would not find rising sun, or the thought that moon is made of green cheese offensive. However, a reasonable person would find to insult, humiliate or intimidate based on their race or religion to be an offensive act. There is a very big difference.

Quote:

These ideas which ISLAM encourages [to be 'taken up' within the psyche of a man, as 'LAWFUL'], this is what offends me;

So, it is whats inside a book which offend you. And what did you do with those feelings Yadda? You make statements like:

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

Now, those Modern Christians who are pro-Palestinian - that you looked down to - what did they do despite the fact that they know the exact same thing and having read the exact same text? They go there, often forsaking their family and material wealth, and help those in need - regardless - of their faith. Why?

Because, they know, that they are human just like us. They have feelings, worries and are flesh and blood just like us. And most importantly, they believe that we are all created by God, and that we are all his children.

I believe they are following the words of God.

Quote:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21655
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #139 - May 6^th, 2014 at 2:18pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

tickleandrose,

It is ridiculous to suggest that a government should introduce proscriptive laws, based upon how i feel [my feelings].

Why so ?

Because i am RESPONSIBLE, for how i feel.

But Yadda, you may have reached a state of mind in which you have become indifferent, and that nothing can make you upset. However, the majority of people in the community do not. When we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person - most of the times, we create an emotional reaction. And if these reactions are persistent and relentless, this will cause material damage to that individual over time - both emotionally and physically. A very close example of this would be the Laws against bullying. If you read up on Brodie's Law - Victoria, you will see how at times, words can cause great harm to others.

tickleandrose,

I have a very ugly face.

My face is so ugly that some people have told me that they don't wish to see it.

Some people have even told me that they are intimidated, when they see my face!

I understand that i am causing trauma to some people.

Should i be confined to my home, maybe ?

Coz, it does offend some people when i am seen in public.

tickleandrose,

Is there any chance of me suing these people [who have told me that i am too ugly to be seen in public places], coz their words are causing great harm to my 'self image' !

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21655
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #140 - May 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

If i claim that i am offended to see the sun rise over my neighbours property, should the government insist that my neighbour erect a screen on his property, so that the sight of the rising sun won't offend me ?

Ridiculous !

Conversely, if my neighbour tells me that he knows that the moon is made of green cheese,
but i 'feel' offended, because i know that the moon is made up of a collection of old boots [which people have thrown up there], should the government seek to gag or to prosecute my neighbour,
because i have made it known that i would 'feel' offended to know - that some people promote the idea that the moon is made of green cheese ?

The difference is that in the eyes of the law, a reasonable person would not find rising sun, or the thought that moon is made of green cheese offensive.

However, a reasonable person would find to insult, humiliate or intimidate based on their race or religion to be an offensive act. There is a very big difference.

tickleandrose,

I'm a reasonable person, .....at least i consider myself to be, a reasonable person.

tickleandrose,

I know that ISLAMIC holy texts, refer to people like myself as 'the friends of SATAN'!!, because i am not a moslem.

And that those very same ISLAMIC holy texts instruct moslems, that they should fight and enslave and kill me, because i am not a moslem.

And i have seen the evidence [from around the world] of this moslem violence against those who are not moslems.

And i have even seen the evidence of this moslem violence, here in Australia.

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

tickleandrose,

Should i feel intimidated by moslems - because of what ISLAM teaches them to believe ?

e.g.
IMAGE...

THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

tickleandrose,

IMO, THOSE PLACARDS [above] ARE EXPRESSING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.

tickleandrose,

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

tickleandrose,

IMO, a moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, which teaches moslems that it is 'lawful' [for moslems], to kill those, who do not believe, as they believe.

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

OR,

Do the rights that a reasonable person can enjoy in law, only apply to people who are not me ?

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21655
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #141 - May 6^th, 2014 at 3:23pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

re Yadda

Quote:

These ideas which ISLAM encourages [to be 'taken up' within the psyche of a man, as 'LAWFUL'], this is what offends me;

So, it is whats inside a book which offend you. And what did you do with those feelings Yadda? You make statements like:

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

Quote:

Not a single moslem will be redeemed by my God.

tickleandrose,

Not only did i suggest that;

Quote:

Your moslem friends are either FILTHY LYING MOSLEMS [who are intentionally deceiving you],
OR,
they are apostate moslems [i.e. not moslems at all].

....but i also challenged you to examine whether the declarations which your moslem friends were making to you were true, and if in fact, your moslem friends were even moslems - if they were not adhering to the tenets and the laws of ISLAM.

Because ISLAM is very, very strict, about moslems adhering to the tenets and the laws of ISLAM !

ISLAMIC law....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."i
But tickleandrose, why do these facts about ISLAM cause you so little concern ?

Is it perhaps because your moslem friends have assured you, that they do not belong to that 'the tiny minority of extremists' - who also refer to themselves as moslems ???

How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

"A Study in Muslim Doctrine
...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden,
insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

Taqiyya

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”

google

+++

tickleandrose,

Why is it that people like yourself, continue to refuse to condemn mainstream ISLAM ?

Why is it that people like yourself, refuse to acknowledge that it is mainstream ISLAM which promotes the violence [murder and terror] which we see in the world, that is being effected, by moslems ?

Quote:

How is peace in the society of man achieved, in the real world?

Is peace achieved through the appeasement of bullies and evil men [e.g. Hitler]?
Today, many people appear to believe that peace comes merely from 'wanting it' [i.e. desire], or from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction], in the face of the violence of evil men.

muso,
Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men.

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

And the ethics, of appeasement?

Is the argument of the ethical person, that the 'tolerance' of any wickedness, is a path towards peace?
Well i say that such a imaginings, are pure poppycock!

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.
The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.
That path leads only to slavery, and death.

How is peace achieved, in the real world?
Peace comes through sacrifice, and our willingness to fight for truth, and to fight for what is right[eous].
And, as ugly as the words may sound to someone such as yourself; Peace comes through judgement.

Peace among men comes as a consequence of righteous judgement.
Peace among men comes when wicked men are judged, and when their fellows [other wicked men] come to understand that their wicked actions, will bring judgement upon them.

p.s.
To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good?
But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83994
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #142 - May 6^th, 2014 at 3:30pm

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

tickleandrose,

Should i feel intimidated by moslems - because of what ISLAM teaches them to believe ?

e.g.
IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg

THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

tickleandrose,

IMO, THOSE PLACARDS [above] ARE EXPRESSING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.

tickleandrose,

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

tickleandrose,

IMO, a moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy, which teaches moslems that it is 'lawful' [for moslems], to kill those, who do not believe, as they believe.

Because the doctrines of ISLAM teach EVERY moslem, that it is religiously 'lawful' for a moslem to kill me - do you believe that i have a right - as a reasonable person - to feel intimidated by EVERY moslem [in my community] ?

OR,

Do the rights that a reasonable person can enjoy in law, only apply to people who are not me ?

Friends, what we are seeing here is that Neo-Soweto Mohammedan crowd, and friends, it makes me so sick I nearly signed myself into that hospital. It's not enough, friends, that they ride on the Western man's comforts and take their freedoms for granted, they need to carry on as well over that Western oppression there, and that, friends, is downhill for everyone.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

austranger

Gold Member

Offline

Opinionated Sod

Posts: 1506
adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #143 - May 6^th, 2014 at 4:17pm

   Don't you ever give up banging that broken drum Yadda?

      You seem to blithely ignore the simple truth, you're wrong.
There are literally billions of Muslims on this planet, multiple millions of them right on our doorstep in Indonesia and Malaysia alone. Yet where is all this psychotic religious behaviour you claim they have to follow?
   We may not like the way they run their countries or the attitudes they display to some things we hold dear, but the simple fact is that they mostly do just as we do, get on with their individual lives as best they can within the social structure they're born into.
   YES, they have their fundamentalists and their looney fringe, and they have bombs and deaths, but by far the majority of the victims of those are the Muslims themselves.
   They're NOT invading this country or any other, they're NOT beheading Christians or any others, they're NOT launching Jihads at the drop of a hat, in fact they do seem to be rather placid and accepting, don't they?
Your massive posts and wild quotes from their Q'ran prove precisely nothing, other than your own obsessive pre-occupation with them, and your total misunderstanding of their actual way of life.
      Please, give it a rest, it's tedious having to constantly scroll past your irrational page-fillers.

      May the Great Wombat bless and guide you.
                                       Wink

Back to top

Any day with a smile in it is a good day

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29342
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #144 - May 6^th, 2014 at 4:46pm

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

This is an area the government needs to remove themselves from. They re effectively legislating thought.

As Brandid said, people have the right to be bigoted, so they can talk and let public opinion be the designated officiator of what is correct.

That is a cop out.
The idea that "society" or "public opinion" should be the arbitrator is something that a conservative with no connection to the real world would say.

The problem is that Andrew Bolt and the other shock jocks have a very visible public profile and a very public media platform from which they can offend, humiliate and denigrate their victims.

On the other hand the victims don't have any sort of power. This power imbalance is why we need laws to protect the vulnerable from predators like Andrew Bolt

What a load of shyte ..... no power Roll Eyes

.... good grief they have their own collective power of being educated & white aboriginals who had access to taxpayer funded legal aid to sue Bolt.

I was racially vilified by a bloke purporting to be an Aboriginal, what redress did or would I have to sue him at tax payers expense?

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Rubin

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 493
Darwin
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #145 - May 6^th, 2014 at 5:40pm

Gnads wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 4:46pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

IQSRLOW wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

This is an area the government needs to remove themselves from. They re effectively legislating thought.

As Brandid said, people have the right to be bigoted, so they can talk and let public opinion be the designated officiator of what is correct.

That is a cop out.
The idea that "society" or "public opinion" should be the arbitrator is something that a conservative with no connection to the real world would say.

The problem is that Andrew Bolt and the other shock jocks have a very visible public profile and a very public media platform from which they can offend, humiliate and denigrate their victims.

On the other hand the victims don't have any sort of power. This power imbalance is why we need laws to protect the vulnerable from predators like Andrew Bolt

What a load of shyte ..... no power Roll Eyes

.... good grief they have their own collective power of being educated & white aboriginals who had access to taxpayer funded legal aid to sue Bolt.

I was racially vilified by a bloke purporting to be an Aboriginal, what redress did or would I have to sue him at tax payers expense?

The same as the person vilfing you he has no more rights than you. I have no doubt that person that did that you has copped it most their life and it is lesson learnt from our society. I'm not justifying their actions wrong is wrong, let's keep real mate.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48844
At my desk.

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #146 - May 6^th, 2014 at 8:59pm

Quote:

Plus, this law in its current format is not about censorship, its about makes it unlawful for someone to publicly "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or a group of people. Which in my opinion is fair.

How is that not about censorship?

Quote:

As to the timing, well may be one day. At the moment, I believe the government should get on with the budget issues as matter of priority. Leave this matter for say Christmas time.

Ah, wrong time of year?

Quote:

If also, this 'public standing' was for all equally - as the law requires - why then can a TV station etc vilify a member of the public and not even offer a right of reply or even a follow-up with contrary evidence, as happened with myself once or twice?

You may have a case for libel there. They are normally careful to offer a right of reply, particularly on controversial issues. If the merely reported on a conviction or something like that, there's not much you can do.

Quote:

Should be a $20 fee to apply and a local court hearing based on truth as the yardstick - not multi thousands with barristers and QCs etc.

Justice is not cheap. There is no way around this.

Quote:

As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.

Truth and public interest are taken into account in most jurisdictions. If you can demonstrate both (and you pig case would be considered in the public interest) then you would have a solid defence.

Quote:

They're NOT invading this country or any other

Not because they don't want to, but because they would get slaughtered. For most of Islam's history that is exactly what they did, and Muhammed lead the way.

Quote:

I was racially vilified by a bloke purporting to be an Aboriginal, what redress did or would I have to sue him at tax payers expense?

People have taken action on that sort of thing in WA. Not that you should bother. Just get on with your life.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

austranger

Gold Member

Offline

Opinionated Sod

Posts: 1506
adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #147 - May 6^th, 2014 at 9:21pm

(FD)
      Quote:
As far as I'm aware here in Oz the truth of a matter has little legal bearing on whether any given statement is defamatory or not, you could spot Abbot dressed as a fairy and screwing a pig, but if you told anyone he could successfully sue you for defamation, it's about the harm you do to him, not whether it's true or not.

Truth and public interest are taken into account in most jurisdictions. If you can demonstrate both (and you pig case would be considered in the public interest) then you would have a solid defence.

            Only if the presiding officer of the court agreed that it was in the public interest, and there's NO guarantee of that, is there?

(FD)
   Quote:
They're NOT invading this country or any other

Not because they don't want to, but because they would get slaughtered. For most of Islam's history that is exactly what they did, and Muhammed lead the way.

      As far as I can recall there were quite extended periods of quiet peace in the history of the Islamic nations, and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least, and certainly less than those of the Christians and Americans, hey?

Back to top

Any day with a smile in it is a good day

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48844 At my desk.	Re: Right To Bigotry? Reply #148 - May 6^th, 2014 at 10:33pm Quote: and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least That's because they have been in no position to do so, not out of some kind of benign intent. When they were in a position to do so, they did.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

austranger

Gold Member

Offline

Opinionated Sod

Posts: 1506
adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #149 - May 7^th, 2014 at 12:57am

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

Quote:

and there haven't been too many Islamic wars of conquest in the last couple of centuries at least

That's because they have been in no position to do so, not out of some kind of benign intent. When they were in a position to do so, they did.

         There's no way you could prove a wild statement like that so I won't ask you to, I'll merely add that I believe you to be wrong, completely wrong. You assume frustrated evil intent without any reason to do so.
         Look you to the Moors in Spain, they ruled there for 800 years and were the most civilized nation in Europe at the time. Literacy was virtually universal at a time when white Europe was exactly the opposite, 98% illiteracy and even the kings etc could rarely read.
         The Moors had Libraries and Universities in abundance and a standard of living that the rest of Europe didn't attain until well into the 19th century!
         They could have easily conquered the rest of Europe at any time but preferred to live in peace, they were tolerant of all other religions and encouraged them all to prosper. Once they were eventually driven out their areas reverted to the effective barbarism of Medieval Feudal Europe.
      That was the story across most of the Islamic world for around a thousand years, hardly a history of the barbaric all-hating religious fanatic society you claim.
      They discovered and introduced science, they brought to Europe their numerals that we use to this day, the concept of zero, compasses, paper, street-lights, and even the concept of breaking meals into courses, beginning with soup and ending with sweets.
         Vicious unthinking killers bent on conquest?
   Think again, you really need to study history a little more, I think you have much to learn.
   Cool

Back to top

Any day with a smile in it is a good day

IP Logged