Australian Politics Forum - Right To Bigotry?

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Right To Bigotry? Reply #60 - May 1^st, 2014 at 8:40pm
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48860
At my desk.

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #61 - May 1^st, 2014 at 9:01pm

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

So...free speech, should I or anyone else be allowed to advocate sending Jews to gas chambers?

Thoughts?

Cat got your tongue?

Is this like Muslims describing Muhammed beheading 800 unarmed Jewish POWs in one day as a noble act and an eternal example for mankind to follow?

What about parroting on about how one day even the rocks and trees will help you slaughter Jews?

Should you be allowed to spew crap like that? You tell me.

Quote:

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness. So, on this regard, I firmly believe it is the wrong time and circumstance to repeal the law. And I believe this is really done to divert the masses away from the real issues such as the economy.

Ah yes, the economy is more important than freedom, racism etc...

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2014 at 9:08pm by freediver »

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

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Online OzPolitic Posts: 40717 Gender:	Re: Right To Bigotry? Reply #62 - May 1^st, 2014 at 9:35pm It should be mandatory
Back to top	« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2014 at 9:40pm by Sprintcyclist » Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

Jackness

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 151
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #63 - May 1^st, 2014 at 11:01pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness.

We are already inclusive in this aspect. It's the non-whites and new immigrants (mostly not all) who do not want to be a part of that inclusiveness. They wish to exclude themselves from the Australian society. They put their race and ethnic identity first and foremost before their identity as an Australian. You can see it for yourself. We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja, we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English, we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group, the list goes on.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21678
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #64 - May 1^st, 2014 at 11:48pm

Jackness wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 11:01pm:

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness.

We are already inclusive in this aspect.

It's the non-whites and new immigrants (mostly not all) who do not want to be a part of that inclusiveness.

They wish to exclude themselves from the Australian society.

They put their race and ethnic identity first and foremost before their identity as an Australian.

You can see it for yourself.

I believe that you are hitting the nail on the head, Jackness!

Quote:

We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja,

we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English,

we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group,

the list goes on.

Jackness,

I think that you may be accurately describing the behaviour of a bunch of racists!!!!!

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

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Right To Bigotry? Reply #65 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:01am people like to speak their own language, who would have guessed? Jackass, youre a genius!
Back to top	IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21678
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #66 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:10am

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 5:35pm:

You know when Brandis said: "Everyone have the right to be bigots you know."

Really, he was meaning "Everyone have the right to be racist."

Because it is on the matter of racial discrimination law. And everyone just assumed he meant the latter. Now, the attorney general cant say the latter, because it would be political suicide.

Whatever bigot mean in the past, it has now a new definition. When you are in charge of a country made of different races and religion (this is the reality), you will want to lead with goal of inclusiveness rather than divisiveness. So, on this regard, I firmly believe it is the wrong time and circumstance to repeal the law. And I believe this is really done to divert the masses away from the real issues such as the economy.

tickleandrose,

The argument that you are making is, effectively, that;

"Everyone has the right to be criminal."
.

.....especially 'new Australians' !!!!

And that i [and everyone else in Australia] should try to 'accommodate', and to be tolerant, of the criminal behaviour of such people.

Of course, your implied argument is ridiculous.

And i do not have to play the 'inclusiveness' game, with people [i.e. with 'new Australians'] who think that it may be OK to exhibit criminal behaviour, in my cultural setting !

e.g.
Some people of different races and religion who come to live in Australia, clearly believe that murder [when they commit it] should be considered a lawful behaviour, for themselves.

Whereas, my culture, this Australian culture, seeks to teach everyone who lives here, that murder should NOT be lawful, for anyone.

So tickleandrose,

Why should i [or any other Australian] 'pursue' a goal of seeking 'inclusiveness' with/towards some people of 'different races and religion', if those people of 'different races and religion' believe that it should be lawful for them to murder people - coz its what they normally do, culturally ?

tickleandrose,

I have a solution. !!!!

Lets all just agree [among ourselves], that we should make it lawful to murder anyone who offends us !

Then we can all be in agreement, and we can all be 'inclusive' together !

What do your think about such an argument tickleandrose ?

+++

tickleandrose,

QUESTION;
Is it culturally OK, for 'new Australians' to murder people [i.e. other Australians], IF MURDER OF 'OTHERS' IS A CULTURAL NORM FOR THEM ?

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

tickleandrose,

QUESTION [again];
Is it culturally OK, for 'new Australians' to murder people [i.e. other Australians], IF MURDER OF 'OTHERS' IS A CULTURAL NORM FOR THEM ?

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.
Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

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

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #67 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05am

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.

Every other race is marked by its difference, by its conspicuousness – by its non-whiteness. White people are not non-Asians or non-blacks. They aren’t “ethnic” as the term is popularly used. If the “ordinary reasonable Australian” has no race, then whether or not we admit it, that person is white by default and brings white standards and experiences to assessing the effects of racist behaviour. Anything else would be too particular.

This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encountered

Poor Waly Waheed. He tells whites that they aren't in a position to tell other races/ethnicities what to think, but then he, as a non-white, thinks he is in a position to say what whitey thinks and does.

Every "progressive" always does this, unknowingly of course. They always claim that whitey is the only racist one and then proceeds to make a bunch of negative generalisations about whites, all the while not cognizant of the fact that he's doing the same thing that he's criticizing.

It's a damning indictment on the academe. How can this clown be a lecturer but not see this basic contradiction? It just goes to show that it's not logical, consistent, reasoned arguments that makes one a lecturer, but that you hold certain moral viewpoints that are accepted as the norm.

Back to top

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4010
Gender: female

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #68 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:00am

[quote]We are already inclusive in this aspect. It's the non-whites and new immigrants (mostly not all) who do not want to be a part of that inclusiveness. They wish to exclude themselves from the Australian society. They put their race and ethnic identity first and foremost before their identity as an Australian. You can see it for yourself. We have females walking around covered from head to toe like a ninja, we have asians who prefer to speak in their own language instead of English, we have non-whites who prefer to assimilate ONLY with their own respective race and ethnic group, the list goes on. {/quote]

I am not sure if we are arguing about the same point. I was arguing that from a ruling class perspective: since it is already a reality that Australia is made of many races, then, it is counter productive and wrong timing to change the law now.

As for your examples, I think you generalized too much. First, people can walk around with what ever clothing they like. At this stage, it is not against the law. And secondly, most Asian friends I have in school speaks fluent English and well as their home language. And third, there also alot of whites who dont want to mix with other races either. They are of personal choice. You will find that nowadays, there are alot of mixed race couples now - certainly more than what it was say 20 years ago. And this is evidence of progress.

Back to top

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #69 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:11am

So, if laws are haphazardly applied are you seriously suggesting that the best solution is to drop the laws. Driving infringements may find themselves on some pretty shaky ground.

I think it is quite telling that the idea of equality doesn't rate a mention.

Further freedom of speech should never be confused with freedom from responsibility.

Oh and if you think that racism towards white men is bad at the moment what do you consider things might look like after removal of 18c?

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4010
Gender: female

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #70 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am

Re Yadda:

You are taking things to the extreme. Have a sit, relax, and drink a mug of milo first.

1) I have never said that tolerance of other people's culture or religion meant the tolerance of murder. You drew the connection in your mind. But a reasonable every day person would not. Why? Just look at the 'evidence' that you provided.

Oh... so dramatic, a picture with an angry young man holding a sign: behead all those who insult the prophet. But, look closer at the picture and what do you see? Mostly young men (typical), and probably without the right education or job. Even then, how many of them have actually beheaded anyone?

2) The law that is in place at the moment in Australia can also serve to restrict this sort of behaviour that you are so fearful of. Why stop it? If you think a bit deeper, do you think these kinds of behaviour would get worse or better under the new and more relaxed law?

3) I dont know about your pesonal experience. But the muslim people I see and know are not like them. I believe, by far, the majority of muslim Australians, (and Asian Australians) they face the same issue as we all do - rising cost of living, work, family issues, etc etc, and everyone are so busy these days, people just dont have the time nor the energy to take spiritual jihad to the physical level. Of course, there are always psychos, but hey, they are not the majority.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:13am by tickleandrose »

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Online

OzPolitic

Posts: 40717
Gender: male

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #71 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:37am

tickleandrose wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Re Yadda:

You are taking things to the extreme. Have a sit, relax, and drink a mug of milo first.

1) I have never said that tolerance of other people's culture or religion meant the tolerance of murder. You drew the connection in your mind. But a reasonable every day person would not. Why? Just look at the 'evidence' that you provided.

Oh... so dramatic, a picture with an angry young man holding a sign: behead all those who insult the prophet. But, look closer at the picture and what do you see? Mostly young men (typical), and probably without the right education or job. Even then, how many of them have actually beheaded anyone?

2) The law that is in place at the moment in Australia can also serve to restrict this sort of behaviour that you are so fearful of. Why stop it? If you think a bit deeper, do you think these kinds of behaviour would get worse or better under the new and more relaxed law?

3) I dont know about your pesonal experience. But the muslim people I see and know are not like them. I believe, by far, the majority of muslim Australians, (and Asian Australians) they face the same issue as we all do - rising cost of living, work, family issues, etc etc, and everyone are so busy these days, people just dont have the time nor the energy to take spiritual jihad to the physical level. Of course, there are always psychos, but hey, they are not the majority.

Hi tickle,
Yes, yadda may be a bit over the top.

islam has all the psychos. All the suicide bombers come from islam.
Wherever there is a religious 'problem worldwide, islam is involved.

the islamics here will jump up and down again at these comments.
But they are overal correct.

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21678
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #72 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:07am

tickleandrose wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Re Yadda:

.... Just look at the 'evidence' that you provided.

Oh... so dramatic, a picture with an angry young man holding a sign: behead all those who insult the prophet. But, look closer at the picture and what do you see? Mostly young men (typical), and probably without the right education or job. Even then, how many of them have actually beheaded anyone?

2) The law that is in place at the moment in Australia can also serve to restrict this sort of behaviour that you are so fearful of. Why stop it? If you think a bit deeper, do you think these kinds of behaviour would get worse or better under the new and more relaxed law?

3) I dont know about your pesonal experience. But the muslim people I see and know are not like them.

tickleandrose,

You are mistaken.

The natural 'posture' of ISLAM and of the moslem, is militancy towards those who are not like themselves [towards those who resist the natural inclination of moslems to ISLAMACISE a society].

The moslems [living within Australia] who you see, who are NOT 'like them' [the placard wavers], are NOT 'radicalised' 'like them' ONLY because Australian secular law and Australian culture [at the moment!!] is successfully SUPPRESSING the normal [militant] practices of ISLAM.

While moslems are politically weak, moslems always pretend to a peaceful, benign, group.

This a strategy, in the type of conflict which moslems wage.

Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims
London, Sept.8 [2007]
A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain.
Polite and softly spoken....
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

The suppression, by Australians [and by Australian secular law] of the natural and 'lawful' militancy of ISLAM [against those who are not moslems] is going to be growing point of contention between the moslem community and host Australian society.

As the numbers of moslems increase within a host nation, the more that ISLAM's natural militancy is suppressed within that nation, the more local moslems will re-act with the claim that their community is being 'victimised'.

QUESTION;
When is the first massacre of hundreds [or thousands] of Australians, within Australia, by a group of 'radicalised' moslems going to happen ???

I do not know.

But when it does happen, we should not blame Australians [who warned us, about the REAL inclination of 'radicalised' moslems to engage in ISLAMIC terror].

We should blame ISLAM - which 'religiously' teaches and encourages moslems to 'employ' terror and militancy, as a legitimate means to achieve political objectives.

Allah's Apostle said,

"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."

hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."

hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land....."

Koran 8.67

Koran [8:67 above] meaning here, first moslems should beleaguer and slaughter their enemies in the land, to terrorise, to cower them.

And then later, moslems will more easily be able to defeat, and enslave a pliant, fearful enemy people.

+++

IMAGE...

August 4, 2005
Australian Islamic leader defends jihad
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.
"The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, is Islam."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1430551.htm

This very same moslem cleric, was later convicted of planning to bomb the Melbourne Cricket Ground, on Grand Final Day!!!
----->

The description of a YOUTUBE video;

Quote:

"A Melbourne Muslim cleric, found guilty of a terror plot to 'blow up' the Melbourne Cricket Ground speaks candidly about his intentions....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jT6ldUu4-4

Google;
mcg bombing plot by 'terrorists'

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: 21678
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #73 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:24am

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:07am:

While moslems are politically weak, moslems always pretend to a peaceful, benign, group.

This a strategy, in the type of conflict which moslems wage.

tickleandrose,

MOSLEMS ARE BARE FACED LIARS.

It is a cultural thing.

MOSLEMS HAVE NO SHAME, IN LYING TO THEIR WIVES, OR TO INFIDELS.

e.g. #1,
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;

"We condemn the killing of all innocent civilians."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article552594.ece

n.b.
Notice the form of words that are used, in the statement above!

e.g. #2,
Another UK moslem community leader, speaking of the SAME London 7/7 bombing;

YT

KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

tickleandrose,

And the 'KICKER' to those comments in item #1, were these...

"...Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar." "

i.e.
When this moslem cleric, is among moslems, he openly declares that it is OK - IT IS LAWFUL FOR A MOSLEM - to kill those who are not moslems.

ISLAMIC law texts declare, moslems can 'lawfully' kill 'unbelievers'/apostates,

"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

+++

Google;

we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

Google;

taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit

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

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

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: 21678
A cat with a view

Re: Right To Bigotry?
Reply #74 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 11:55am

"Right To Bigotry"

And some people on this forum have accused me, Yadda, of being a bigot.

I am NOT a bigot.

And i am happy for any moslem to debate me and prove that i am mistaken, about my accusations, against ISLAM.

Some people have accused me of being a bigot, because i tell them 'uncomfortable' things.

I am making people feel, 'uncomfortable'.

But these are 'things', they are facts, they are instances, they are evidences, about ISLAM, which moslems have failed to adequately rebut.

Why is that ?

Dictionary;
rebut = = claim or prove to be false.

If what i am saying,
about what ISLAM is,
and about what ISLAM encourages,
and about the evidence which proves how moslems are intentionally lying to us,
if all of these accusations that i make are false, then why can't moslems prove me wrong, in debate.

Surely, if what i am asserting is false, surely a moslem can prove that what i am claiming is false.

What is my error ?

Is the difficulty for the moslem [to prove that what i claim is false], because that many of the 'sources' and the evidences that i use to accuse ISLAM, are from ISLAMIC sources, and from moslem sources ?

+++

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

THE RELIGION OF PEACE

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

ALL ABOUT THE MOSLEM DOCTRINE OF LYING, TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL OBJECTIVES....

Quote:

....Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:07pm by Yadda »

"....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