# The West has lost its freedom of speech



## dutchie (8 January 2015)

My respect to the victims of the Islamic terrorist attack on the journalists of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.

My condolences to all their families.


----------



## Tink (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*

Agree, dutchie

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18326&page=5


----------



## DB008 (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*

Sadly, Islam has won.


----------



## pixel (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



DB008 said:


> Sadly, Islam has won.




I strongly disagree:
It's not "Islam" that has committed these atrocities, but a bunch of extremist nutters.
And they will only have "won" if we let them dictate how we react to their evil ideology, which may be based on an interpretation of parts of the Qur'an, but is definitely not shared by "all Muslims".


----------



## banco (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



pixel said:


> I strongly disagree:
> It's not "Islam" that has committed these atrocities, but a bunch of extremist nutters.
> And they will only have "won" if we let them dictate how we react to their evil ideology, which may be based on an interpretation of parts of the Qur'an, but is definitely not shared by "all Muslims".




I think you'll find that a very large % of muslims would support laws that prohibited the kinds of cartoons that the French magazine published.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



banco said:


> I think you'll find that a very large % of muslims would support laws that prohibited the kinds of cartoons that the French magazine published.




Maybe a large % of Christians would want the same, as that magazine lampooned all religion not just Islam, but they have to learn that the same system that supports freedom of religion also supports freedom of speech. One without the other is not acceptable.


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2015)

This atrocity should finally put paid to the notion in France and the rest of Europe that this "evil idealogy" can co-exist with the values held by Western democracies. Brendan O'Neill,editor of _spiked_ writes;



> TODAY is a dark day for Europe. The barbaric assault on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is an attack most immediately on the journalists and cartoonists who worked there, 12 of whom are dead, executed in cold blood for the ‘crime’ of saying what they think. But this horrific act was also an attack on Europe itself, on all of us, on our fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech. None of us can feel the pain currently being felt by the friends and families of the murdered journalists and illustrators - but all of us should feel assaulted by this massacre, for it is designed to chill us and make us cower, to make us censor ourselves or else suffer the consequences






> *Enough. The Paris massacre shows us the terrible dangers of this new Endarkenment, this retreat from freedom of thought and speech and this unleashing of a new, seemingly PC intolerance. The best, most civilised response to this barbaric act is to promise that we will defend freedom of speech every time it is threatened, stop kowtowing to the offended, and stand up to every mob, campaign group, thug and gunman that think they have the right to silence others. That’s what spiked plans to do - to embolden even further our fight for the right to be offensive, in memory of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo and in the name of freedom and Enlightenment*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...k-day-for-europe/story-e6frg6so-1227177920577


----------



## banco (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



SirRumpole said:


> Maybe a large % of Christians would want the same, as that magazine lampooned all religion not just Islam, but they have to learn that the same system that supports freedom of religion also supports freedom of speech. One without the other is not acceptable.




This is just BS false equivalence. "oh but the the christians"


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



pixel said:


> I strongly disagree:
> It's not "Islam" that has committed these atrocities, but a bunch of extremist nutters.
> .




you can't have one without the other. If you raise millions of children with the belief that a certain book is the word of god, a certain percentage always going to take it literally.

Beliefs inform actions, and when a large group believes nonsense, don't be surprised when we have some terrible side effects happening.

We could go another thousand years condemning extremism, but saying moderate religion is good, and we will have thousand years of extremism.

The only way to get rid of extremism is move away from moderate religion and other supernatural stuff in favour of rational thoughts. As long as moderate religion gets respect and is viewed as good, children will continue to be lied to and indoctrinated, and a certain percentage will become extremists.


----------



## banco (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



Value Collector said:


> you can't have one without the other. If you raise millions of children with the belief that a certain book is the word of god, a certain percentage always going to take it literally.
> 
> .




A central tenet of islam is taking the Koran literally.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



banco said:


> This is just BS false equivalence. "oh but the the christians"




Not really, Australia does have blasphemy laws, although the last person charged and sentenced was in 1919, for a piece of satire (sound familiar)



> The Crown last laid a charge of blasphemous libel in 1919. The case concerned socialist journalist Robert Samuel Ross, who had published a satirical piece in which Bolsheviks ransack heaven. The prosecutor dropped the charge but proceeded on a charge of sending blasphemous materials through the mail. The Court convicted Ross, and sentenced him to six months of hard labour.[2]




----------

However, in our not to distant past western countries have put people to death for blasphemy.

Also, in the last few years Christians in Africa have put "witches" to death by burning them alive, so taking religious texts literally and do nasty things is not just a muslim thing.

It is however less common in Christianity, because Christianity has been suppressed by secular society for a much longer period of time, So they mainly just threaten to burn you in hell after you die rather than literally burn you alive like they used to.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



banco said:


> A central tenet of islam is taking the Koran literally.




it's the central tenant of many Christian faiths also.


----------



## Tink (8 January 2015)

Agree, Calliope, and section 18C should have been changed.

Are you still going on with this PC garbage, VC.


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



pixel said:


> It's not "Islam" that has committed these atrocities, but a bunch of extremist nutters.




That seems to be the popular excuse. It was also used in the Sydney seige. It is bullsh!t. It is well oganised.



> The CIA estimates that ISIS has a fighting strength of 20,000 ”” at minimum. The high-end estimate is 31,500



.
All dedicated Islamist "nutters" A big bunch indeed.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/12/6138977/isis-iraq-numbers


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



banco said:


> This is just BS false equivalence. "oh but the the christians"




Pity you didn't take in all of my post.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Are you still going on with this PC garbage, VC.




?????

What are you talking about?

What have I said here that has anything to do with Political correctness?

---------------

They closest topic I have mentioned to political correctness is the anti blasphemy laws, which I oppose, charging people with blasphemy would be enforcing political correctness in the highest degree.

By the way, What's your opinion on blasphemy laws?


----------



## banco (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



SirRumpole said:


> Pity you didn't take in all of my post.




If you are trying to argue that the average Christian in the West has similar views to the average muslim on whether satire dealing with religion should be prohibited/punished you are either being disingenuous or you are a fool.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



banco said:


> If you are trying to argue that the average Christian in the West has similar views to the average muslim on whether satire dealing with religion should be prohibited/punished you are either being disingenuous or you are a fool.




I simply said that all religions have to learn that freedom of speech comes with freedom of religion in western countries anyway. If you want one you have to accept the other.

If you couldn't comprehend that from my first post, then you are the fool.


----------



## FxTrader (8 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> That seems to be the popular excuse. It was also used in the Sydney seige. It is bullsh!t. It is well oganised.



Islam inspired violence seems the most appropriate description for current events though even this will likely be criticized by the apologists for religion here.  It's all too convenient to excuse the Islamic faith from any blame for the actions of "criminal extremists" who presumably misinterpret this so called religion of peace.  I would argue that the "nutters" are simply literalists who take their faith to seriously.

How should one interpret and act on the verses below if you're a devout Muslim literalist/fundamentalist?  What "context" allows one to cast such statements in a peaceful light? 

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 (8:39) And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

 Quran (9:29) Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Quran  (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the  Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of  their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:33) It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

Quran (2:191-193) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo!
Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression


----------



## overhang (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



SirRumpole said:


> Maybe a large % of Christians would want the same, as that magazine lampooned all religion not just Islam, but they have to learn that the same system that supports freedom of religion also supports freedom of speech. One without the other is not acceptable.




What are you basing this statement on other than your opinion?  I don't really recall any example of Christians or any other religion making threats against these types of satire magazines never mind carrying out an attack.  Yet we have many examples of Muslims condemning such coverage with the threat of violence.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



overhang said:


> What are you basing this statement on other than your opinion?  I don't really recall any example of Christians or any other religion making threats against these types of satire magazines never mind carrying out an attack.  Yet we have many examples of Muslims condemning such coverage with the threat of violence.




Are you limiting your examples to recent years, if so you may be correct, at least in western society apart from a few bombings and murders at abortion clinics and the killing of children to get them into heaven before sin, the western Christians have been a pretty benign group, Christians in other parts of the world are not shy when it comes to killing gays and burning witches though.

And if you want to look into the past decades, the catholic church is probably the biggest book banning organisation in history, it certainly hasn't been a pillar of support for free speech, and a little further back regularly put people to death for blasphemy. 

The fact the Christians are not killing people for blasphemy anymore in the west is not a virtue of their religion, it's because secular society won't put up with it, and we have sidelined them out of our government.

-----------------

Christians violently beat woman to death in mcdonalds.


----------



## overhang (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



Value Collector said:


> Are you limiting your examples to recent years, if so you may be correct, at least in western society apart from a few bombings and murders at abortion clinics and the killing of children to get them into heaven before sin, the western Christians have been a pretty benign, Christians in other parts of the world are not shy when it comes to killing gays and burning witches though.
> 
> And if you want to look into the past decades, the catholic church is probably the biggest book banning organisation in history, it certainly hasn't been a pillar of support for free speech, and a little further back regularly put people to death for blasphemy.
> 
> ...



Yes this is only based on recent examples in Western society as I can't recall too many satire tabloids in early days and like you have said no doubt if one was around in the late 1800s and early 1900s they would have probably faced the same backlash from Christians as they are from Muslims today.  This as you put is probably more due to secular society than Christians tolerance to criticism, for example someone with say Tinks religious passion may call for blasphemes to be persecuted if Tink happened to be around in the late 1800s.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



overhang said:


> What are you basing this statement on other than your opinion?  I don't really recall any example of Christians or any other religion making threats against these types of satire magazines never mind carrying out an attack.  Yet we have many examples of Muslims condemning such coverage with the threat of violence.




I'm not going to enter into a debate about this religion vs that religion, that wasn't the purpose of my post. However Christian churches tried to get Monty Python's "Life of Brian" banned when it first came out.

One thing common to all religions is the lack of a sense of humour.


----------



## bellenuit (8 January 2015)

Some "cartoons" from other European papers today.....








And will any newspaper be as brave as the Berlinner Zeitung, who chose to run this as their front page (a collection of controversial cartoons from Charlie Hebdo)


----------



## Bintang (8 January 2015)

I think the media should respond to this barbarous act with an avalanche of satirical humour in the fine tradition of Charlie Hebdo. Unfortunately it looks like the opposite is happening because there are signs the main stream media is censoring itself.


----------



## dutchie (8 January 2015)

Behead those who want to kill cartoonists and journalists!


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2015)

> The fact the Christians are not killing people for blasphemy anymore in the west is not a virtue of their religion, it's because secular society won't put up with it, and we have sidelined them out of our government.




So Muslims are sidelined out of government and that hasn't stopped them killing people. Maybe you just can't admit that Christians have dragged themselves into the modern world whereas Muslims are still in the Middle Ages.

Anyway, if Christians have been sidelined, why do we still get this religious chaplains nonsense ?


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> I think the media should respond to this barbarous act with an avalanche of satirical humour in the fine tradition of Charlie Hebdo. Unfortunately it looks like the opposite is happening because there are signs the main stream media is censoring itself.




Yes, I doubt there will be any newspaper with guts enough to publish a satirical cartoon featuring "the prophet". So, in effect, the terrorists win.

The two brothers involved have recently returned from Syria, and there are thousands more like them. In Australia we can't do anything to these returnees until after their atrocities are committed..



> French magazine Le Point is reporting the two brothers had returned to France from Syria last month, and had ties to an Iraqi network in Paris encouraging young men to join militants in Iraq.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So Muslims are sidelined out of government and that hasn't stopped them killing people.




There are still plenty of Islamic theocracies.

 My comment about sidelining them out of government was talking more about state based executions for blasphemy of the type that happens in countries where the government is closely tied to a religion. There are Islamic countries where you can be tried and sentenced to death for blasphemy, in my opinion this is just as bad as the recent killings, this used to be the case in Christian theocracies also, but we don't see the catholic church being involved in law making and requesting such laws be reinstated because secular society has pushed them out of government. 



> Maybe you just can't admit that Christians have dragged themselves into the modern world whereas Muslims are still in the Middle Ages.




They have been dragged into the modern world because in general society has become more secular.



> Anyway, if Christians have been sidelined, why do we still get this religious chaplains nonsense




The same reason you have wisdom teeth. these things tend to hang around, and take many generations to go away. hopefully, like wisdom teeth they get removed when people realise they serve no purpose and have bad side effects.


----------



## Bintang (8 January 2015)

Cartoons of the future will probably look something like the following:


_Source_


----------



## Tisme (8 January 2015)

dutchie said:


> The West has lost its freedom of speech.




I can only hope the French have not lost their freedom of using the National Razor in public squares for low life scum mass murderers.


----------



## bellenuit (8 January 2015)

Sky News are reporting that the policeman seen being wounded and then callously murdered while pleading for his life is a Muslim. Though nobody is blaming the majority Muslim population for this, I have no doubt that many apologists will use the policeman story to try and pretend this has nothing to do with Islam. I have just seen a short discussion on BBC with 4 Muslims and one stated that there is nothing in the Koran to justify this murderous attack on the journalists. The interviewer left that pass. Pity they didn't have someone on that is familiar with the Koran and could have confronted him with the many passages advocating such atrocities.

Meanwhile, several arabic speaking people on Twitter have confirmed that about 30% to 40% of #Charliehebdo tweets that are in Arabic support what has happened. A tiny minority my foot.


----------



## Julia (8 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Meanwhile, several arabic speaking people on Twitter have confirmed that about 30% to 40% of #Charliehebdo tweets that are in Arabic support what has happened. A tiny minority my foot.



I simply do not understand the apparent unwillingness to admit that this is terrorism.  Surely such an obviously well planned and meticulously executed attack didn't come from some lone nut case as we were repeatedly assured was the case with the Sydney siege.

Perhaps it's my general distaste for all religion, a conviction that it achieves little that is positive in any way, that determines my attitude here, but when the assailants shout Islamist epithets as they murder a room full of their targets, I just don't know what other conclusion can be drawn.


----------



## Bintang (8 January 2015)

It's not just an act of terrorism. It is a declaration of war on Western democracy. I think it's time for every country confronted by this to get tough and invoke war-like counter measures.  There will never be a soft, easy way to deal with these lunatics.


----------



## Tisme (8 January 2015)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d8b020c-5792-11e4-8493-00144feab7de.html#axzz3OERQxq5p


----------



## dutchie (9 January 2015)

International cartoons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-react-Paris-massacre-poignant-drawings.html


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

*Re: The West has lost it's freedom of speech*



Value Collector said:


> you can't have one without the other. If you raise millions of children with the belief that a certain book is the word of god, a certain percentage always going to take it literally.
> 
> Beliefs inform actions, and when a large group believes nonsense, don't be surprised when we have some terrible side effects happening.
> 
> ...




Fully agree-I fail to see how this is not the case.  The attribution of these acts to 'extremists' may be correct at a superficial ( PC) level but they are embedded within the doctrinal nonsense that has spawned them.  Until it is the doctrinal nonsense that is named and undermined/transcended it will keep happening.


----------



## Tisme (9 January 2015)

dutchie said:


> International cartoons
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-react-Paris-massacre-poignant-drawings.html





Yeah that will teach any wannabe killer...if you try to bring a gun to the fight we will bring pen...lookout! And if you persist we will skitch the chronicle of truth, justice and the crony way, the Courier Mail onto you, be warned.

My concern about the media as a freedom front is two fold: 1) are we to be subjected to a politically partisan war cry propaganda machine; 2) why has the Islam pen been mightier than the secular pen of late?  

Of course the irony of the Islamics attacking media that attack them as too immature to be insulted have actually behaved the way they were being lampooned ..... life imitating art as it were ...... small minds are easily manipulated.


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> ; 2) why has the Islam pen been mightier than the secular pen of late?
> 
> .





one reason seems to be that we value this life, and the 'extremists' dont....


----------



## Julia (9 January 2015)

Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....."  and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative.  "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.

Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....."  and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative.  "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
> Much more of similar.
> 
> Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.




It is diffcult not to think that this type of comment simply highlights the underlying doctrinal affiliation of the caller and ipso facto their ideological support for the act.
These are the kind of things that are let through to the keeper without challenge far to often.
These folk are not 'extremists' ( or are they?)  but their lack of outrage at these barbaric behaviours seems to be a growing part of the problem?


----------



## Tisme (9 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> .... but their lack of outrage at these barbaric behaviours seems to be a growing part of the problem?




Apparently they take umbrage at being responsible for their own sphere of influence and are, in this case, French first Muslims second. They are not to blame for Islamic barbarity because the KKK is Christian and they are barbarians too.... apparently we Westerners don't rage at the KKK so they don't have to rage at their own devil's spawn.

Of course the real reason is that if they show regret and revulsion to non Muslims they, as the chosen ones, are breaking their own divine God's rules of engagement with the real low life = us. They are better than you and me you see.


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....."  and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative.  "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
> Much more of similar.
> 
> Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.




Yes, I hate that attitude, it is summed up well here, I think Jaclyn is spot on,


----------



## FxTrader (9 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, I hate that attitude, it is summed up well here, I think Jaclyn is spot on,



Is the prophet and his God so powerless that they need a couple of duped savage animals to act as proxies on Earth to kill to defend their honour? Of course these latest murders in France are all about Islam and its teachings.  This is plainly obvious to all but fearful, politically correct moral cowards who on one hand pay lip service to free speech and expression but then label criticism (and satire) of religion (specifically Islam) as confrontational and a provocation.  Then these fearful cowards draft laws limiting speech so as to not offend believers in imaginary Gods and their self-proclaimed prophets.  This follows the playbook of religious extremists who use fear to manipulate the freedoms in western societies. 

Surely it's now time to be more vocal about the liabilities of religion in general and Islam in particular.  Beliefs in imaginary Gods and the magic books that describe them need to be challenged more vigorously than ever before.


Time to revist a great article on this subject by Sam Harris called "On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God"...
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god?2015


----------



## Chris45 (9 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....."  and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative.  "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
> Much more of similar.
> 
> Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.




I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.

The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png

Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.

We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> It is diffcult not to think that this type of comment simply highlights the underlying doctrinal affiliation of the caller and ipso facto their ideological support for the act.
> These are the kind of things that are let through to the keeper without challenge far to often.



Particularly when aided by a d**khead of a presenter offering encouragement.  Way to go, ABC

This next comment is a diversion from the Muslim-related discussion but it's very much about free speech, and I'd like to know what members' view is of this:



> Pressure is mounting against a planned speaking tour by American anti-vaccination campaigner Sherri Tenpenny, with at least one venue now cancelling a seminar.
> 
> Dr Tenpenny, an osteopath who believes vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and auto-immune disorders, is planning a series of lectures against vaccination in March aimed at parents of babies.
> 
> ...




In this I side with the pro-vaccination group and believe she should be prevented from promoting her anti-vaccination philosophy on the grounds that to do so constitutes potential for public health risk.

But that is to absolutely suppress her right to free speech.

I think a similar situation has arisen with Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who has been outspoken about Muslims and as a result refused permission to speak in some countries.

Are we guilty of being hypocritical in our clamour for free speech?


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
> http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
> 
> Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.
> ...




What outrages you the most?  The type of humour or the murders of the people who express the humour?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2015)

> Are we guilty of being hypocritical in our clamour for free speech?




I generally think that irrational arguments like those against vaccination have to be defeated with rational arguments.

The A.V. campaigner should be required to produce evidence to prove her claims. This is obviously a subject where evidence can be produced and debated. No doubt this person is sincere about her objections to vaccination, so let's hear why.

In terms of Charlie Hebdo, I see no reason to deliberately offend people, however freedom of speech includes that right. 

We may indicate our objection to deliberate affrontery by refusing to buy that publication, not by slaughtering people on the streets. The "I'm not in favour of violence, but" argument does not wash when it comes to murder.

 Perhaps if Muslims were subject to retaliation and others used the same argument against them, they may have a different view.


----------



## FxTrader (9 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.



You must mean cowardly, fearful and muzzled cartoonists who don't poke fun and people like yourself for taking the fiction in magic books seriously for fear of death.



> We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.



Dancing on the graves of the dead cartoonists already! Those poor cartoonists (RIP) deserve some respect in death, even from the likes of you.  As an ambassador for religious nonsense here, you should at least be capable of some shred of dignity and decency by condemning cold, calculated murder.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
> http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
> 
> Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.
> ...




Careful what you wish for, Chris: you might get it.

So you consider Charlie Hebdo's particular brand of French humour crude and puerile, therefore understand how some idiots are offended to the point that they want it suppressed by slaughtering the creators.
Apply the same "logic" to magazines that show more skin than the burqua permits, and you won't have any more pictures published. ... or girls photographed.

The only way to react to an outrage like this is education: Tell people to grow up and ignore what they don't like. That applies to Fred Nile just as much as to American Bible Bashers, and any Holy Cow in between.

Like FxTrader, I find much of the scriptures distasteful - be it the Torah, Old and New testament, or Koran. Those books were written by fraudsters who wanted to excuse their own atrocities against anyone "not chosen" like them. If you really analyse that attitude, it is quintessential Racism. Two of these tribes are still "at it" in the Middle East, the third group seem to be learning that their past behaviour didn't work all that well. But, as mentioned above, they too have fringe groups that are still stuck in the dark and would rather legislate their particular brand of fantasy.


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> In terms of Charlie Hebdo, I see no reason to deliberately offend people, however freedom of speech includes that right.




I don't think people have a right to "not be offended" by anything in life. I mean some people are offended by seeing a gay couple show affection in public or are offended at the sight of a females uncovered head. If you get offended by certain things, it may actually be something which you have to work on yourself.

If you wish to live in a free society and be able to express yourself, you need to be able to allow others to do the same.

I think satire and mockery are perfectly acceptable retorts to religions who claim moral superiority and claim to be  holders of revealed truth. Offcourse I am not in favour of bullying individuals, I respect the rights of individuals to do what they like, But just because they have the right to do it, doesn't take away my right to say its silly.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Perhaps if Muslims were subject to retaliation and others used the same argument against them, they may have a different view.




I doubt it. Look at what's currently going on in the UN and The Hague: Palestinians object to civilians being shot at, and try to obtain a conviction of Israel in a Western-style Court.

Mind you, from a point of equal rights for everyone, I'd be inclined to agree. But for Hamas to hide behind civilians when shooting into Israel, crying foul when their human shields are hit - that reeks of hypocrisy.


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known.We're better off without idiots like that




We are better off without the religious Idiots.

Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.

As for your comment, its absolutely atrocious.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.




Of course they should be made fun of...especially when their ideologies are based on imaginary gods or someone who rode up to heaven on an "animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule". i.e. an imaginary animal.



> *Reporting live on CNN, Wolf Blitzer accused Charlie Hebdo of occasionally going “over the line” in their satirical criticisms of current events.*
> 
> The comment came as Blitzer was detailing the Islamic terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo office, which resulted in the deaths of 10 staff members and two police officers.
> 
> ...




*Over the line !* What garbage. There is no line for a religion which promotes evil.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As for your comment, its absolutely atrocious.




The reality is that there are people around who make an art form of being offensive to get noticed, which is what I think Chris45 was saying.

Of course, they don't deserve to get murdered for it, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserve any special consideration as to their contribution to society.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.




If some people poked fun at the Halal food farce instead of pandering to it for the sake of making a buck, that may help too.


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The reality is that there are people around who make an art form of being offensive to get noticed, which is what I think Chris45 was saying..




actually I think, in the context of this discussion, that is what he is doing


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> actually I think, in the context of this discussion, that is what he is doing




I'm sure he can speak for himself, but imo he was just stating a fact.


----------



## Chris45 (9 January 2015)

Lindsayf, I assume you're not really expecting a serious answer to your question. I agree with, and second, SirRumpole's responses.

If you want an example of a person who makes an art form of being offensive to get noticed, look no further than FxTrader. Although I must confess s/he is so ridiculous, I find it quite funny. S/he could probably get a job with that CH mob.

Pixel, ... 







> therefore understand how some idiots are offended to the point that they want it suppressed by slaughtering the creators.



 ... no! 

VC, ... 







> I don't think people have a right to "not be offended" by anything in life ... If you get offended by certain things, it may actually be something which you have to work on yourself.



 ... So, racial vilification like calling blacks n**g**s, boongs etc, and obscene behaviour like people copulating in public in front of children, and so on ... these behaviours are all acceptable to you are they? That's certainly not the sort of society I want to live in.



> We are better off without the religious Idiots.



 ... yes, AND the offensive and obnoxious anti-religious idiots.

To repeat what I said before, I believe that in a civilised society we should all try to live together harmoniously and be tolerant of each other's beliefs.


----------



## FxTrader (9 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure he can speak for himself, but imo he was just stating a fact.



What "fact" would that be exactly?

That we should try to live harmoniously with those who would kill us for disagreeing with them about the existence of imaginary God's and mocking their irrationality for doing so?

That cartoonists deserve to die if they offend violent religious morons?

That rather than show sympathy for victims of extreme violence and their families at such a difficult time it's more appropriate to trash their memory, denigrate their profession and celebrate their death?  

Who get's to define what constitutes what is offensive to dead false prophets?  If I declare that Mohamed was a violent pedophile (a fact) do I deserve to die for it?  When you allow violent religious fanatics to define what is offensive to them and have no sympathy for the victims of their murderous treachery religious fascism has triumphed over secular democracy.


----------



## Macquack (9 January 2015)

We will only have a true "secular democracy" when we get rid of ALL government funding for ALL religious based schools.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2015)

> What "fact" would that be exactly?




That there are people who are deliberately offensive to get attention and sell more papers or magazines.

Do you deny this ?

Of course they have a right to do what they do/did, some of them may even be funny. And before you start calling me an apologist for terrorists I hope the murderers are hunted down, and preferably terminated with extreme prejudice.

However just because people use their freedom of expression to insult people instead of engaging in rational debate doesn't mean we have to exalt them as some sort of secular Messiahs. Clever satirical cartoons can be used very strategically to prove a point. If that is the sort of output that Charlie Ebdo produces, good luck to them. If they just indulge in gratuitous denigration then that's another matter. 

No one deserves to be murdered for their views, but we still have to make a rational assessment of the value of their works to society in general.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> We will only have a true "secular democracy" when we get rid of ALL government funding for ALL religious based schools.




... and remove all tax advantages for religion-based organisations

Note, I'm not talking about charitable organisations. Red Cross, Flying Doctors, Fire Fighters, Soup Kitchens, Op Shops are charitable without the need to profess a particular creed. They deserve all support they can get.

Sadly, it won't happen though because there are votes in bigotry, even if it's only lip service that pledges to treat every creed claiming to be a religion as a bona fide religion.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2015)

FxT and C45:
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts that are designed to provoke others. Continued violations of this rule will result in the permanent suspension of your ASF account. 

You know which posts I refer to. I have edited them out and hope we can return to a less acrimonious debate.


----------



## FxTrader (9 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That there are people who are deliberately offensive to get attention and sell more papers or magazines.  Do you deny this?



They go by various titles, shock jocks, cartoonists, comedians, satirists etc.  There is nothing disreputable about mocking human actions, beliefs and attitudes.  If you turn off to many people you lose your job and hence your podium.  I find fascist ideas and speech disturbing but the best remedy is to mock their ideology and discredit their propaganda.



> However just because people use their freedom of expression to insult people instead of engaging in rational debate doesn't mean we have to exalt them as some sort of secular Messiahs. Clever satirical cartoons can be used very strategically to prove a point. If that is the sort of output that Charlie Ebdo produces, good luck to them. If they just indulge in gratuitous denigration then that's another matter.



You've missed my point entirely to attack a straw man.  Insulting "people" is not the issue, these people died for insulting the prophet.  A dead warlord masquerading as a mouthpiece for a fictional God.  It's unlikely that anyone would take offense and kill me if I mocked belief in Zeus or someone claiming to be his prophet because it's understood to be myth.  



> No one deserves to be murdered for their views, but we still have to make a rational assessment of the value of their works to society in general.



To what end?  Censorship or laws banning the expression of their views?  What we need is a "rational assessment" of the liabilities of religion instead.


----------



## lindsayf (9 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
> http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
> 
> Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.
> ...




OK on second read, perhaps it is just very poorly, naively and insensitively written- it is easy to read this and think you are attributing blame to the victims, suggesting a level of deservedness, and even a sentiment of condonement ( _we are better off_...) - which is incredibly disturbing if that is the case.  

Your comment remains in poor taste, is poorly timed and offensive - your outrage could find a much more appropriate target C45.  

Sure you could say some of the satire is base and offensive - but really, cant get much more base and offensive than some of the Koran/bible content.  At least the satirist can provoke a bit of critical thought from time to time.


----------



## FxTrader (9 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> OK on second read, perhaps it is just very poorly, naively and insensitively written- it is easy to read this and think you are attributing blame to the victims, suggesting a level of deservedness, and even a sentiment of condonement ( _we are better off_...) - which is incredibly disturbing if that is the case.
> 
> Your comment remains in poor taste, is poorly timed and offensive - your outrage could find a much more appropriate target C45.
> 
> Sure you could say some of the satire is base and offensive - but really, cant get much more base and offensive than some of the Koran/bible content.  At least the satirist can provoke a bit of critical thought from time to time.



Well said Lindsay, +1.  I found it incredibly disturbing and morally bankrupt (hence my strong response), akin to the actions of fanatical Christians in the U.S. who taunt people attending the funerals of dead servicemen.  We should all have the decency to show sympathy for the dead and their grieving relatives at such a difficult time.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2015)

> To what end? Censorship or laws banning the expression of their views?




No, just a personal assessment to decide whether we want to buy their product or not.



> What we need is a "rational assessment" of the liabilities of religion instead.




By all means let's have this, I just wonder whether insults and denigration are the best way of doing it. That's dragging ourselves down to the level of some of the religious doggerel we are trying to dismiss.


----------



## UMike (9 January 2015)

lindsayf said:


> ......  At least the satirist can provoke a bit of critical thought from time to time.




That's the whole point of cartooning. To go over the top or outside the square and make the reader think about the cartoon content.


----------



## luutzu (9 January 2015)

From the Real News Network.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2015)

Meanwhile closer to home we're arresting people in Queensland for mocking a political campaign and we're stifling freedom of speech in Tasmania too.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...178179455?sv=538577154ae827a2eda61e8a8a4081f9

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/p...efamation-magnet/story-fnpp9w4j-1227176354947

Neither are good developments in my view. Whether or not someone agrees with a particular point of view, it is absolutely critical to the functioning of our society that such views can be expressed without fear.


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2015)

pixel said:


> FxT and C45:
> While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts that are designed to provoke others. Continued violations of this rule will result in the permanent suspension of your ASF account.
> 
> You know which posts I refer to. I have edited them out and hope we can return to a less acrimonious debate.




Pixel, point taken. May I draw your attention to the inflammatory comments in the last paragraph of post #49?


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2015)

Islam is the most problematic religion on Earth and we should be calmly, but firmly, resisting its attempts to infiltrate us and ultimately dominate us. Boycotting Halal certified food and objecting to the building of mosques, etc are simple acts of resistance we can all do, as well as rejecting socialist, bleeding heart politicians who favour Muslims.

France now has a serious Muslim problem, but they have created it for themselves so now they have to deal with it, ... and no one can tell the French what to do.

Of course I condemn the barbarous murders in Paris, as I condemn all acts of terrorism and wanton violence, but I'm not going to shed crocodile tears and run around holding up a silly "Je suis Charlie" sign in support of a bunch of arrogant French artists who frankly should have known better.

My compassion is directed to the innocent victims of this horrific massacre ... the cops who were slaughtered in their line of duty, plus any others who were innocently caught up in the event.

Actions have reactions and we all know that Muslims take their prophet very seriously and those cartoonists knew perfectly well what they were doing when they published their provocative and insulting drawings, and it does not surprise me that a couple of extremists one day decided to whack them. And if that sounds callous and insensitive then sorry but they should have heeded the first message that was sent to them when their office was burnt down.

Calm and firm resolve to resist the Islamic takeover is what we need, and what we don't need are arrogant film makers, cartoonists and other provocateurs, and the fools who support them, who delight in insulting particular groups of people and desecrating their religious icons, monuments, grave stones, etc, etc ... things that they hold sacred ... under the guise of "freedom of speech", for their own personal gain ... and I disagree with those who think that this is acceptable behaviour.

But rather than seeing them executed I would prefer to see them firmly re-educated to redirect their energies into more productive activities.

What "free speech" we enjoy in this country is something that should be treasured and not exploited and abused for the sake of notoriety and personal gain. Our cartoonists seem to understand that concept and exercise appropriate restraint when expressing their views, and for that I congratulate them.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2015)

Chris, you make some very valid points.  

A letter to "The Weekend Australian" today raises the issue of academic Barry Spurr's being effectively forced to resign from his position after someone hacked his emails which were then published by "New Matilda" and included some pejorative comments about various groups.

So, while there is much insistence that cartoonists should be able to say and depict whatever they wish, no matter how provocative, apparently we don't extend the same permission to our university professors.

At least I suppose Professor Spurr is still alive and perhaps that is the essential difference?

Separately, there has apparently been some vandalism of mosques in France.  People are surprised at this????
An expression of anger and disgust, but at least one which does not endanger human life.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> Islam is the most problematic religion on Earth




They're all based on unsubstantiated claims, its just that Islam's claims have more harmful practical implications than the others.

I agree that we should resist it in practical ways.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> I agree that we should resist it in practical ways.




So do I. The problem is that there is no hierarchy in Islam as there is in say the Catholic church. It all depends on the local mullahs and what their attitude is. 

Keeping track of the local Muslim leaders and what they teach their adherents is essential. Then you also have the problem of radicalisation via Internet. Surely the most violent jihadist sites could be blocked, but then people use VPN's to spread child pornography so supposedly the jihadists do the same.

Difficult situation that requires international cooperation.


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Chris, you make some very valid points.
> 
> A letter to "The Weekend Australian" today raises the issue of academic Barry Spurr's being effectively forced to resign from his position after someone hacked his emails which were then published by "New Matilda" and included some pejorative comments about various groups.
> 
> ...




Julia, thank you, and that's an interesting point about the Barry Spurr emails. It's disturbing that New Matilda were allowed to get away with publishing his private emails. That's verging on "thought police". It would be different if he had published his views on a public forum.

But there appears to be one rule for cartoonists and another for everyone else.

I suppose the same could be said about the Andrew Bolt "It's so hip to be black" article.

Clearly a double standard there.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2015)

[southpark muhammad episode 201 censored!!] - West officially surrenders to radical islam!!!


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So do I. The problem is that there is no hierarchy in Islam as there is in say the Catholic church. It all depends on the local mullahs and what their attitude is.
> 
> Keeping track of the local Muslim leaders and what they teach their adherents is essential.




Yes, and we need the help of the moderate Muslims to enable us to rid our communities of these radical clerics who preach hatred and violent jihadism, and we should not risk alienating them by allowing irresponsible cartoonists to insult them with their puerile and offensive drawings under the guise of "free speech".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-threat-admits-former-chief-prosecutor.html

Apparently his conviction was based on the testimony of moderate Muslim informers who infiltrated his fiefdom, although the security services were hamstrung by human rights laws and for many years were unable to act on the information they were given.

These jihadist clerics, as well as the human rights lawyers who protect and defend them, are the people the cartoonists need to focus their pencils on.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2015)

C45 says;



> I'm not going to shed crocodile tears and run around holding up a silly "Je suis Charlie" sign in support of a bunch of arrogant French artists who frankly should have known better.




Rumpole says;



> However just because people use their freedom of expression to insult people instead of engaging in rational debate doesn't mean we have to exalt them as some sort of secular Messiahs.




I think they are backing the wrong side. I don't think that either of them realises that allah is an imaginary god. Can they explain how an imaginary god can have a prophet?

Satire is the best weapon against nonsense. These men are the true martyrs. Not the Jihadists who were killed.


----------



## pixel (10 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> Islam is the most problematic religion on Earth .




It depends very much on what time period and what brand of religion you're talking about. If it's today's Taliban and Al-Qaeda perverted version of Saudi-style Wahhabism, you may have a point. But turn the clock back 500 years and contemplate Spanish Catholicism, and the Incas, who were murdered by Spanish Conquistadors, would strongly disagree. As would the Canaanites two millennia before that, when "The Chosen People" killed them for their "Land of Milk and Honey". Or how about Australian peoples, who had lived scores of millennia in harmony with nature on the basis of their Dreaming: I can think of a few reasons why they might consider the Christian Missionaries as more problematic than any other "visitors".

On the other hand, Islam had a Golden Era when it dragged Europe out of the post-Roman Dark Ages.

Do yourself a favour and read post #298 of https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29119
You will be amazed to find a truly enlightened side of Islam. Without Science and teaching of Islamic schools from the 9th century onward, Western Civilisation would arguably never have come off the ground.


----------



## Chris45 (10 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I think they are backing the wrong side. I don't think that either of them realises that allah is an imaginary god.




In danger of going off topic here so I'll keep it brief. I suggest you watch:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/customuniverse/



> *Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix.* The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. *Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".*
> 
> To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
> 
> ...



http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1876666.Paul_Davies

Food for thought.


----------



## FxTrader (10 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> Islam is the most problematic religion on Earth and we should be calmly, but firmly, resisting its attempts to infiltrate us and ultimately dominate us. Boycotting Halal certified food and objecting to the building of mosques, etc are simple acts of resistance we can all do, as well as rejecting socialist, bleeding heart politicians who favour Muslims.



Many religions and religious sects are problematic for various reasons. Radical Islam and the extreme violence it sanctions can't be "calmly" resisted, it requires decisive military action.  Boycotting Halal certification is a total waste of time and only hurts local producers.  

If you advocate for the prevention of Mosque construction then to avoid the charge of overt discrimination, no new temples or churches should be built. While a highly desirable outcome, it's wishful thinking.  It's not the building that's the problem, it what is taught inside.



> France now has a serious Muslim problem, but they have created it for themselves so now they have to deal with it, ... and no one can tell the French what to do.



Every society harboring radical Islamists has a serious problem.  France did not create this problem, Islamists did.



> Of course I condemn the barbarous murders in Paris, as I condemn all acts of terrorism and wanton violence, but I'm not going to shed crocodile tears and run around holding up a silly "Je suis Charlie" sign in support of a bunch of arrogant French artists who frankly should have known better.
> 
> My compassion is directed to the innocent victims of this horrific massacre ... the cops who were slaughtered in their line of duty, plus any others who were innocently caught up in the event.
> 
> Actions have reactions and we all know that Muslims take their prophet very seriously and those cartoonists knew perfectly well what they were doing when they published their provocative and insulting drawings, and it does not surprise me that a couple of extremists one day decided to whack them. And if that sounds callous and insensitive then sorry but they should have heeded the first message that was sent to them when their office was burnt down.



On one hand you condemn the massacre and on the other you think some of the victims are more deserving of compassion and sympathy than others based on their occupation.  They are ALL innocent victims, clearly something you fail to comprehend and yes your comments sound callous and insensitive and they are.  Your attitude reminds me of those who criticized the Jews for not leaving Europe quickly enough when the Nazi's started to persecute them based on the notion that they should have seen what was coming.  Hence the victims are at fault as they should have anticipated the violent actions of the perpetrators and been intimidated into action.



> Calm and firm resolve to resist the Islamic takeover is what we need, and what we don't need are arrogant film makers, cartoonists and other provocateurs, and the fools who support them, who delight in insulting particular groups of people and desecrating their religious icons, monuments, grave stones, etc, etc ... things that they hold sacred ... under the guise of "freedom of speech", for their own personal gain ... and I disagree with those who think that this is acceptable behaviour.



Ah, the slippery slope argument for censorship of those who might offend others belief in imaginary God's and their false prophets.  Sam Harris says it best...



> _*The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance*_






> But rather than seeing them executed I would prefer to see them firmly re-educated to redirect their energies into more productive activities.



Re-education camps like we have in North Korea perhaps.  This is nothing more than totalitarian excrement masquarading as a reasonable proposition.



> What "free speech" we enjoy in this country is something that should be treasured and not exploited and abused for the sake of notoriety and personal gain. Our cartoonists seem to understand that concept and exercise appropriate restraint when expressing their views, and for that I congratulate them.



Free speech is exploited every day on the internet and cartoonists who avoid mocking the bad ideas embodied in religions like Islam are cowards.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> Food for thought.




Yeah. Junkfood for idiots.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2015)

pixel said:


> It depends very much on what time period and what brand of religion you're talking about. If it's today's Taliban and Al-Qaeda perverted version of Saudi-style Wahhabism, you may have a point. But turn the clock back 500 years and contemplate Spanish Catholicism, and the Incas, who were murdered by Spanish Conquistadors, would strongly disagree. As would the Canaanites two millennia before that, when "The Chosen People" killed them for their "Land of Milk and Honey".



I get your point but, pixel, it doesn't really seem particularly useful to consider what may have occurred hundreds of years ago as relevant to what is happening now.  

This evening I heard the latter part of Radio National's "Encounter" doco which was titled "Dreaming of the Caliphate".
One speaker rejected the notion that the desire by Muslims for a global caliphate was an old aim, and actually suggested it had moved into the post-modern era.  Further, that the West would have to realise that they could no longer dominate global power and thinking.

It hardly left me with a sense of reassurance that so called moderate Muslims (whatever this means) will provide much resistance to a religious/political force which can convince them that it represents the will of their Prophet.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2015)

"Moderate Muslim" is an oxymoron. It's like saying that Ted Bundy was a moderate serial killer, because he only killed  females.


----------



## lindsayf (10 January 2015)

FxTrader said:


> Many religions and religious sects are problematic for various reasons. Radical Islam and the extreme violence it sanctions can't be "calmly" resisted, it requires decisive military action.  Boycotting Halal certification is a total waste of time and only hurts local producers.
> 
> If you advocate for the prevention of Mosque construction then to avoid the charge of overt discrimination, no new temples or churches should be built. While a highly desirable outcome, it's wishful thinking.  It's not the building that's the problem, it what is taught inside.
> 
> ...




+1.


----------



## pixel (11 January 2015)

Paul Davies may know a thing or two about Physics and Cosmology. 
Does that make him infallible when it comes to speculation about *meta*physical hypotheses? A number of his fellow scientists disagree. Let us not place undue emphasis on his co-authorship of the ill-fated "discovery" of arsenic-based life forms. However, his thirty-something knobs that have to be tweaked just so that we can exist, remind me of another great theorist, Georg Cantor, who lived from 1845 to 1917.
Cantor formulated the Set Theory, a corner stone of Mathematics, which brought him fame and wide-spread recognition. Subsequently, he also embarked on religious and philosophical studies. Some indications are for that to be sparked by the discovery of the great paradox of Set Theory, _the set of sets that do not contain themselves as a subset._ His inability to recognise this as a paradox, i.e. ultimately an inadmissible concatenation of terms, drove him deeply into depression.

Davies' thought experiment speculating on hypothetical knobs that have to be fine-tuned seems to be just such an inadmissible concatenation of terms. Of course, if the mass ratio between neutrons and electrons were any different, the entire mathematical model of our cosmos would be different. Quantum Theory *may* find an equation that would allow a different set of numbers. The wave-particle duality could possibly allow a few alternatives. But the resultant universe would then have different properties; and so would life forms - if they existed at all in a recogniseable shape. With 30 or more observed or hypothetical parameters, the problem may well turn out a paradox more complex by orders of magnitude than Cantor's "set of sets". ... and by orders of magnitude more likely to drive anybody insane...

Regardless of whether or not it's a paradox though, plain logic would suggest Davies has the cart before the horse when he suggests a Divine Planner has arranged those parameters just so that we can exist. If in fact that's his tenet at all. A more appropriate way of wording it would be "We exist in a universe that has the following properties..." And even though one may want to bypass the paradox by postulating a para-doctor named "God", any and all of the attributes commonly associated with Allah, Baal, Christ, ... Wotan, Xuhu, Yahweh, Zeus would be superstitious poppycock, Especially those bits about killing or re-educating everyone who disagrees with a particular brand of superstitious poppycock.

It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that one day, we'll have a complete model of the universe and everything that surrounds it. At that time, scientists might then feed different parameters into a super computer to find how other configurations would look like. Who knows, there might even be some really *intelligent* life forms possible.


----------



## burglar (11 January 2015)

pixel said:


> ... Who knows, there might even be some really *intelligent* life forms possible.




Would they make them underground?  Just to have a peek!


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2015)

FxTrader said:


> Free speech is exploited every day on the internet and cartoonists who avoid mocking the bad ideas embodied in religions like Islam are *cowards*.




I think the trick is to be anonymous or at least, not have a published address.


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2015)

It's not surprising that the Islamic atrocity apologsts hate Andrew Bolt...especially when he has the guts to tell it like it is.



> PROTESTERS around the West, horrified by the massacre in Paris, have held up pens and chanted “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie.
> 
> They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.
> 
> ...



.

Read more;
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...nd-shamefully-no/story-fni0ffxg-1227180871950


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So do I. The problem is that there is no hierarchy in Islam as there is in say the Catholic church. It all depends on the local mullahs and what their attitude is.
> 
> Keeping track of the local Muslim leaders and what they teach their adherents is essential. Then you also have the problem of radicalisation via Internet. Surely the most violent jihadist sites could be blocked, but then people use VPN's to spread child pornography so supposedly the jihadists do the same.
> 
> Difficult situation that requires international cooperation.




There is no hierarchy in Christianity as a whole either, I mean certain sects and cults like the Catholic Church have a hierarchy within their little ecosystem, but there are thousands and thousands of cults based on Christian mythology.

Eg, the catholic cult hierarchy has no sway over what the, Mormans do in their cult etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There is no hierarchy in Christianity as a whole either, I mean certain sects and cults like the Catholic Church have a hierarchy within their little ecosystem, but there are thousands and thousands of cults based on Christian mythology.
> 
> Eg, the catholic cult hierarchy has no sway over what the, Mormans do in their cult etc.




True, but there is a hierarchy within the Mormon church and most of the other offshoots of Christianity, eg the Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the CofE (or is it the Queen?), anyway someone is responsible for policy and administration of that entire sect, but with Islam it's less concentrated as the Imam's do their own thing as far as interpretation of the Koran goes.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2015)

Well it's great to see that Andrew Bolt has now entered the debate as another seasoned, responsible public speaker.  And clearly we can understand where he gets his ideas from. Rupert Murdoch has made his position clear.


> Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.




So here's a suggestion on just how we could encourage the Muslim community to take seriously it's responsibility to ensure that Muslim terrorists aren't able to get away with the dastardly acts of  Sydney, Paris, Nigeria,  Syria wherever.

First.  Clearly as a first step we need to be able to identify and then locate every Muslim person. This is as much to protect them as it is to protect us. So we can start with universal  Muslim identity cards and compulsory tattoos.  ( I suppose more extreme elements would ask for visual identification (a crescent ?) and implanted location finders.  IMO that is going too far in the current circumstances.)

Now we have to have a public debate on just what measures we take as a peaceful law abiding community to encourage Muslims to eradicate the scourge of  jihidists amongst their midst and in our society. Perhaps we should consider the old systems of collective responsibility and collective outcomes..

So one proposal might be that if there is any outrage committed by a jihidist  and someone dies we ballot the Muslim community and pick 100 adults who are stripped of citizenship rights and  within two weeeks are deported to a Muslim country (This is a democratic country so naturally they can choose where they want to go..) They are allowed to take two suitcases each (up to 30kgs in each case) and up to $10,000. Of course if two people die it's 200 adults and so on.

Again some more extreme elements would advocate for harsher measures. Automatic imprisonment, possibly even public hanging or blowing them off the barrel's of cannons. (_Highly effective response by the British after the Indian mutiny I understand)
_ 
But again we are a fair, peaceful and law abiding country so such extreme measures should not be countenanced in the current circumstances...

This proposal might be a bit rough around the edges but given the horrors inflicted on Western Civilizations by these fanatics and their refusal to respect the dignity of human life we have to defend ourselves as best we can..

________________________________________________________________________________________

Source notes for this proposal.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html   Jonathan Swift  "A modest proposal..."

PS. Naturally if any Muslim state dared to terrorize their holy Christian citizens as a misguided response to this restrained but necessary measure we would have to  *immediately *terminate them with extreme prejudice. 
I'm sure Allah and Christ will be able to separate the good from the bad.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2015)

> This proposal might be a bit rough around the edges but given the horrors inflicted on Western Civilizations by these fanatics and their refusal to respect the dignity of human life we have to defend ourselves as best we can.




There would be some people on this forum who would think you are serious and I see them saluting right now.


----------



## Bintang (11 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There would be some people on this forum who would think you are serious and I see them saluting right now.




Yes, some really excellent ideas there from Basilio.
I would add to the list the idea of bringing back internment camps for all those living in our midst who are adherents to Islam – i.e. akin to Australia’s World War 2 camps that interned thousands of men, women and children who were considered to be enemy aliens.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Yes, some really excellent ideas there from Basilio.
> I would add to the list the idea of bringing back internment camps for all those living in our midst who are adherents to Islam – i.e. akin to Australia’s World War 2 camps that interned thousands of men, women and children who were considered to be enemy aliens.




Well done Bintang. I knew i wouldn't be disappointed. But just to refine your idea.

Building, paying for and guarding internment camps is probably far too costly and unwieldly.  A more modern and cost effective solution would be designating particular suburbs for the true believers and ensuring all such people are safely housed in these areas. 

A decent perimeter wall, searchlights and entry and exit checkpoints would  ensure Security for everyone.

I believe some people call them ghettos but perhaps we should come up with a 21st Century name in case people get the wrong idea. ?


----------



## Bintang (11 January 2015)

basilio said:


> Well done Bintang. I knew i wouldn't be disappointed. But just to refine your idea.
> 
> Building, paying for and guarding internment camps is probably far too costly and unwieldly.  A more modern and cost effective solution would be designating particular suburbs for the true believers and ensuring all such people are safely housed in these areas.
> 
> ...




*Cost*, of course was one of the main excuses Neville chamberlain used in the 1930's to reject Winston Churchill's calls for the re-arming of Britain.
Nonetheless  Basilio, keep going with the suggestions. I like them.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Cost*, of course was one of the main excuses Neville chamberlain used in the 1930's to reject Winston Churchill's calls for the re-arming of Britain.
> Nonetheless  Basilio, keep going with the suggestions. I like them.




How about psychodelic truth serum implanted into all Halal food that when consumed convinces the eater to immediately go to the police and confess their sins ?


----------



## Bintang (11 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> How about psychodelic truth serum implanted into all Halal food that when consumed convinces the eater to immediately go to the police and confess their sins ?




Now let's be fair. If that was really a good idea it should be implanted into all food. Especially anything fed to our politicians.


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> True, but there is a hierarchy within the Mormon church and most of the other offshoots of Christianity, eg the Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the CofE (or is it the Queen?), anyway someone is responsible for policy and administration of that entire sect, but with Islam it's less concentrated as the Imam's do their own thing as far as interpretation of the Koran goes.




As soon as the hierarchy in the Christian cults do something that a portion of the followers don't like they split into a new sub group, hence why there is like 20,000 different ones, some are big like the Catholic Church, some are small like the Westboro baptist church.

its no different to Islam, each Muslim group has a hierarchy, they just tend to be smaller groups. 

All the cults based in Christian mythology do their own thing with regards to interpretation of the bible, some are ok with gays, others want to kill them, some believe hell is a real thing, others believe its metaphor, some think the bible is 100% true! others think its poetic.


----------



## Tink (12 January 2015)

Good on Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and others that have the courage to speak out, or try to.

The Greens, the ABC, the left, have let us down with this PC.

The Brits have had enough...

Number One Priority for 2015: Make Political Correctness History 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-for-2015-make-political-correctness-history/


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

> *’The entire country will rise up,’’vowed the French president Francois Hollande*. Organisers estimated over two million people attended the march, far more than expected.
> 
> Across France, authorities estimated at least 3.7million people marced in an unprecedented show of support for the victims of the Islamist attacks.




Rise up against whom? He doesn't say...but you can bet your balls nothing will change. The march after all was only a show of support for the victims, not solidarity against the alien Islamists.How could it be when Egypt and Turkey, with questionable history of incarcerating journalists, sent politicians to march at a rally that was to honour the profession.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-for-new-terror/story-e6frg6so-1227181707731


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

Tink said:


> The Greens, the ABC, the left, have let us down with this PC.




Can you give some examples of political correctness which you don't agree with, and maybe an example of how its affected your life?

Also, you didn't answer my question on blasphemy earlier, Are you ok with anti blasphemy laws?


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Can you give some examples of political correctness which you don't agree with, and maybe an example of how its affected your life?
> 
> Also, you didn't answer my question on blasphemy earlier, Are you ok with anti blasphemy laws?




Tink you are not here to be interrogated. Perhaps VC could give us some examples of PC he agrees with, although I doubt that he even knows it exists, as it probably conforms with his own political views.


----------



## Tink (12 January 2015)

Thanks, Calliope 

VC, when I give an opinion, I don't appreciate you bringing up the Catholic Church, or any Christian Church, to throw down my post.

That is MY opinion.
This is 2015, and I don't appreciate you taking me back to the 1800's.

As I have said, there are many journalists I agree with, and Miranda Devine is one.

We have been silenced with PC, and that is wrong.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> How about psychodelic truth serum implanted into all Halal food that when consumed convinces the eater to immediately go to the police and confess their sins ?




The obvious way to extract the information we want is to set up WTTN sites, even WTTP is cost is no option. The prototypes have been very successful in Cuba and ready for rollout. The Waterboarding to the Node  "Gitmo" brand would be my first pick amongst manufacturers because: 1) It's American made 2) Americans are our bestys.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Calliope
> 
> 
> We have been silenced with PC, and that is wrong.




My recollection is that we had a brief encounter with carte blanch opinions with our tongues and pens in the seventies and the pendulum was damped back by PC (thanks to the City of London City socialists), corresponding with the infancy of the internet discussion boards and it's juggernaut advance.

When I was a child, too much time was spent by the 15 yearolds and up earning a quid and buttoning their lips to keep the job, rather than voicing an opinion to deaf or easily offended ears. 

I'm trying to think of equivalents to Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, et al in the sixties and before...anyone?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> My recollection is that we had a brief encounter with carte blanch opinions with our tongues and pens in the seventies and the pendulum was damped back by PC (thanks to the City of London City socialists), corresponding with the infancy of the internet discussion boards and it's juggernaut advance.
> 
> When I was a child, too much time was spent by the 15 yearolds and up earning a quid and buttoning their lips to keep the job, rather than voicing an opinion to deaf or easily offended ears.
> 
> I'm trying to think of equivalents to Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, et al in the sixties and before...anyone?




Sixties ? I was too young then. My first recollection of DJ's was Gary O'Callahan and his mate Sammy Sparrow.

Mind you, Sammy did have a bit to say about aircraft noise and chopping down his habitat to put up housing estates, but I don't thnk it was offensive to Alan Jones standards.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

Tink said:


> We have been silenced with PC, and that is wrong




How have you been silenced?

What is it that you feel you can't say due to political correctness?

You actually do have freedom of speech, But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism if you use your free speech in a bigoted way.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm trying to think of equivalents to Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, et al in the sixties and before...anyone?




I suppose you mean on the loony left. Try your mentor Noam Chomsky for starters... and Phillip Adams.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sixties ? I was too young then. My first recollection of DJ's was Gary O'Callahan and his mate Sammy Sparrow.
> 
> Mind you, Sammy did have a bit to say about aircraft noise and chopping down his habitat to put up housing estates, but I don't thnk it was offensive to Alan Jones standards.




The way I see it is that there is a notion that we are losing something we never really galvanised. Most of the world had censorship in place right up to the baby boomer protests and beyond. The US had McCarthyism, with the advent of TV movie makers tried to keep audiences by delving into sacrilegious themes and movies like "the Miracle" became a standout legal stoush in the USA testing freedom of expression against obscenity, the first world went into apoplexy when a Catholic became US President, but the masses were coached into polite discomfort via women's mags.

There is still a classification board here in Oz, that is by any other name a censorship panel governing the rating, but it is no way as strict as it was a generation ago. True we have the Abbott Govt looking to wind back community involvement by secreting data on issues like migration, sedition, etc and using the ABC as a whipping boy to show its resolve to bring back fairness that favours the LNP narrative, but in truth the bias has already been there in shows like "The Drum" with guest spots in 1011/2012 :

IPA (Conservative (C)) - 39 (42%)
Centre for Independent Studies (C) - 17 (18%)
Per Capita (P) - 15 (16%)
Centre for Policy Development (P) - 9 (10%)
Menzies Research Centre (C) - 5 (5%)
Grattan Institute (Independent (I)) - 3 (3%)
Australia Institute (Progressive (P)) - 2 (3%)
Lowy Institute (I) - 2 (3%)
McKell Institute (P) - 1 (1%)

Freedom of expression is a fantasy notion in many respects.


----------



## Tink (12 January 2015)

What freedom of speech, VC.

We allowed the ABC to broadcast two pedophile homosexuals that desperately wanted a baby, and we weren't allowed to speak.
They transported that child around the world to be abused.

I have plenty more to add which I will later.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

Tink said:


> What freedom of speech, VC.
> 
> We allowed the ABC to broadcast two pedophile homosexuals that desperately wanted a baby, and we weren't allowed to speak.
> They transported that child around the world to be abused.
> ...




Who has said that you can't speak out against Paedophilia?

Paedophilia is a crime, Not only can you speak out against it, But offenders will be jailed.

If you want to some how use paedophilia as a spring board for your BS slippery slope arguments to discriminate against gay members of our society then prepare to cop some flak though. You have the right to be bigot, but you don't have the right to be immune from criticism. 

You can start blogs, protest in the street, write letters, do radio shows etc, and no one will arrest you, How is that not free speech.


----------



## FxTrader (12 January 2015)

Tink said:


> This is 2015, and I don't appreciate you taking me back to the 1800's.




That's a fair comment, let's examine the recent opinion of a Catholic Cardinal in 2015...

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/cardinal-raymond-burke-blames-8216radical-feminists8217-for-paedophile-priests-20150111-12lyng.html



> The New Emangelism: Drawing Men to Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church, Cardinal Raymond Burke (formerly of St. Louis) opined that, "the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalised." This radical feminism has resulted in men being confused about their role in life, which has led to all kinds of disastrous things like a decrease in the number of altar boys alongside an increase in the number of priests who inappropriately touch them.




From the Burqa to paedophilia, women must stop tempting and confusing men or they are responsible for men's responses.  Such is the insanity of religious dogma and the fools entrusted to interpret it.  Should the press be free to point this out, the major obsession that mainstream religions have with a woman's appearance and attitudes?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You actually do have freedom of speech, But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism if you use your free speech in a bigoted way.




One man's bigotry is another man's freedon of speech.

Have you seen any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons ?

Do you think they are bigoted ?


----------



## luutzu (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> How about psychodelic truth serum implanted into all Halal food that when consumed convinces the eater to immediately go to the police and confess their sins ?




hahaha... you and basilio are too cruel. Laughing my az off reading the exchange.

Haven't laugh so hard since The Life of Brian's biggus dickus scene.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> One man's bigotry is another man's freedon of speech.
> 
> Have you seen any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons ?
> 
> Do you think they are bigoted ?




Yes, I have seen some of the cartoons, I don't read French so their meaning is mostly lost on me, they may or may not be bigoted, I am not sure. If you want to put up some examples with translation I will tell you what I think.

Freedom of speech ensures you have the right to express opinions even if they are bigoted, However freedom of speech doesn't make you immune from criticism, However we should all be immune from violent assault, the cartoonist drawings even if they were bigoted did not justify the attack.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You can start blogs, protest in the street, write letters, do radio shows etc, and no one will arrest you, How is that not free speech.




PC has put an effective ban on caricaturing or satirising mohammed the prophet.The various news media's PC policy will not even allow a reprint of previous caricatures. PC in the west is working hand in glove with the radical islamists.

*"And Freedom shall awhile repair	
To dwell, a weeping hermit, there!"*

Take a look at these in the Land of the Free.



> The Missouri Fair has permanently banned a rodeo clown from performing just because he wore an Obama mask, and now all of the other rodeo clowns are being required to take “sensitivity training“…
> 
> But the state commission went further, saying it will require that before the Rodeo Cowboy Association can take part in any future state fair, “they must provide evidence to the director of the Missouri State Fair that they have proof that all officials and subcontractors of the MRCA have successfully participated in sensitivity training.”
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (12 January 2015)

Callioppe do you actually* believe* the stuff you post ?  And of course it is always interesting to see the full picture rather than a chopped version.

I have to say so much of it is just nonsense and lies.  I know that because I often (tediously) follow it back to source and cross check it.

Have you ever considered some people on the internet might not tell the truth ? Indeed they might not even care... just as long as they can trash a person/idea/organisation they don't like.


----------



## Julia (12 January 2015)

FxTrader said:


> That's a fair comment, let's examine the recent opinion of a Catholic Cardinal in 2015...
> From the Burqa to paedophilia, women must stop tempting and confusing men or they are responsible for men's responses.  Such is the insanity of religious dogma and the fools entrusted to interpret it.  Should the press be free to point this out, the major obsession that mainstream religions have with a woman's appearance and attitudes?



Is that really a fair response, Fx?     I usually agree absolutely with your philosophy but this is clearly a tongue in cheek article, essentially mocking that Catholic Cardinal, unless my powers of comprehension are very lacking.

Actually, I think there's some basis for criticism of what the militant feminist movement has created with its insistence on seeing misogyny where it doesn't really exist, by simply being rude in response to a bloke holding a door open for them etc.  I don't know that that's marginalising men but it's probably causing a bit of confusion amongst blokes in terms of just how they're supposed to behave. 



Tink said:


> What freedom of speech, VC.
> 
> We allowed the ABC to broadcast two pedophile homosexuals that desperately wanted a baby, and we weren't allowed to speak.
> They transported that child around the world to be abused.
> ...



Tink, there was nothing stopping anyone wishing to speak against that program.  And to be fair to the ABC, they did later broadcast an equal length program essentially underlining how wrong their original interpretation of the men's desire to have a child was.

The second program was unsparing in its detail of the vile behaviour of the men.

I think it's too soon to know the overall outcomes of homosexuals raising children, but we probably shouldn't assume most who do so have abuse in mind.
From a purely practical point of view, though, I'm damned if the taxpayer should be supporting their IVF etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> However we should all be immune from violent assault, the cartoonist drawings even if they were bigoted did not justify the attack.




Correct, but the question isn't about whether cartoonists deserve to die, of course they don't, it's about how people perceive whether cartoonists are bigoted or not. 

People are more likely to believe they are bigoted if the cartoons make fun of something near to their heart, eg their own religion or sexuality, whereas others can sit back and laugh because they have no "skin in the game" about the subject of the cartoons. 

So bigotry is unlikely to be something we can all agree on I would think.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> PC has put an effective ban on caricaturing or satirising mohammed the prophet.The various news media's PC policy will not even allow a reprint of previous caricatures. PC in the west is working hand in glove with the radical islamists.




Were the cartoonists in France in danger of being arrested or jailed?

If the Sydney morning herald reprinted the cartoons, would the Australian Government shut them down?

Offcourse not.

The editors of the Sydney morning herald may not want to publish them to protect their staff from illegal attacks, But they are free to do it, Just like a woman is free to walk home alone at night, she may not want to because of fear of being raped, But she has the right to do it.   

You have the right to call a person a N#gger or use the word N#gger,  But it is also the right of others to criticise you for being insensitive, or not want to be around you, or ask that you don't use that around them, or not call them that, or not use it while you work for them.

It's not politically correct to use the word N#gger, but you are free to use it.




basilio said:


> Callioppe do you actually* believe* the stuff you post ?  And of course it is always interesting to see the full picture rather than a chopped version.
> 
> I have to say so much of it is just nonsense and lies.  I know that because I often (tediously) follow it back to source and cross check it.
> 
> Have you ever considered some people on the internet might not tell the truth ? Indeed they might not even care... just as long as they can trash a person/idea/organisation they don't like.




+1


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So bigotry is unlikely to be something we can all agree on I would think.




Perhaps, the definition of bigotry is.



> intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.




So I guess it depends on what the intolerance is about, in general tolerance is good in society, but there are certain things that do not disserve tolerance.

Violence against children for example should not ever be tolerated, So while a stance against a people who hold an opinion in favour of violence against children might be technical bigotry, it wouldn't be the type of bigotry most people are against.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Perhaps, the definition of bigotry is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Agree again, but child abuse is a criminal offence, unlike religion, and it's abhorrence  is so obvious  I doubt many people would argue about attacking it.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:
			
		

> but in truth the bias has already been there in shows like "The Drum" with guest spots in 1011/2012 :




Very interesting. I wonder if there is data to show that this program is now more popular with Coalition voters.

I don't watch it any more, not because of the political content but there were too many self important w@nkers aguing on points of trivia for it to supply any useful information.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Julia said:
			
		

> I don't know that that's marginalising men but it's probably causing a bit of confusion amongst blokes in terms of just how they're supposed to behave.




Yes, and I'm one of them.

I was always told that it was a gentlemanly act to open a door for a lady, and some still appreciate it, but I wish they would wear signs saying "If you open a door for me I won't (or will) bite your head off for being sexist".


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Agree again, but child abuse is a criminal offence, unlike religion, and it's abhorrence  is so obvious  I doubt many people would argue about attacking it.




there are grey areas, take ritualistic male or female circumcision, or maybe even just non physical mental abuse of children, based around the religions, or their treatment of females.

No doubt there is a whole host of things you and I would be intolerant of, which are core beliefs of some of these religious groups.

When I attack some of these Ideas or core beliefs, the holder of those beliefs may try and charge me with bigotry. To get around this, I am always self examining my own opinions to make sure they are based on moral, rational reasoning, that can be justified through sound logical arguments, and I always take the attitude of increasing personal freedoms where possible, while protecting others rights to not be harmed.

If there are two options I always try and take the side that increases personal freedoms, but only up to the point that the personal freedom harms others, or encroaches on the freedoms of others.


----------



## Bintang (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's not politically correct to use the word N#gger, but you are free to use it




If you are so free to use it then why do you spell the word using a # symbol.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Were the cartoonists in France in danger of being arrested or jailed?




I've no idea, but under Sharia law they would have been.



> If the Sydney morning herald reprinted the cartoons, would the Australian Government shut them down?
> 
> Offcourse not.




It's not the law that stops them...it's PC



> It's not politically correct to use the word N#gger, but you are free to use it.




Is it PC that stops even our brave VC from putting the word in plain English? Yes it is.

You and basillio seem a bit confused about the meaning of Political Correctness VC. It has nothing to do with the law. It's about rules.

Political Correctness is;



> agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people




It is very selective about "particular groups".POLITICAL Correctness has no problem with satirising the leaders of other religions e.g. the Pope, the Queen, the Dalai Lama or Jesus Christ but it puts a protective shield around the prophet Mohammed.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Very interesting. I wonder if there is data to show that this program is now more popular with Coalition voters.
> 
> I don't watch it any more, not because of the political content but there were too many self important w@nkers aguing on points of trivia for it to supply any useful information.




I think the ABC has probably been too high brow for many of Howard's Battlers to concern themselves with first hand viewing... they have Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to tell them what to think and complain of the ABC.


----------



## pixel (12 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> If you are so free to use it then why do you spell the word using a # symbol.




Most Forum software has a spell checker built in that replaces words deemed inappropriate for polite society by asterisks. I don't know whether ****** or black bastard are among them; it may also be up to the Forum Administrator to determine the level of acceptable language. 
In any case, it's not a secret and the more experienced a poster, the more likely will he/she anticipate and use a different spelling that bypasses the need to edit afterwards.
Using a 1 for an i or @ for a are common substitutions, in cases where one feels the need to write one of those words in order to make a point.

PS: So now we know: I had spelled in plain text the "N" word and find it's been replaced by the exact number of *'s. On the other hand, it proves I no longer need to spell barstud, although I prefer that spelling to the original...


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Most Forum software has a spell checker built in that replaces words deemed inappropriate for polite society by asterisks. I don't know whether ****** or black bastard are among them; it may also be up to the Forum Administrator to determine the level of acceptable language.
> In any case, it's not a secret and the more experienced a poster, the more likely will he/she anticipate and use a different spelling that bypasses the need to edit afterwards.
> Using a 1 for an i or @ for a are common substitutions, in cases where one feels the need to write one of those words in order to make a point.
> 
> PS: So now we know: I had spelled in plain text the "N" word and find it's been replaced by the exact number of *'s. On the other hand, it proves I no longer need to spell barstud, although I prefer that spelling to the original...




Well there you go. Is this forum PC or just trying to maintain a balance between genuine discussion and civility ?

Personally I'm a bit miffed that you can't always say what you mean here, but if you go too far the other way it just opens the door for gratuitous foulmouths and we don't want that sort here.

Commonsense has achieved a reasonable balance imo.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

I think Bintang was making a point, using the forum word filter as an example.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Most Forum software has a spell checker built in that replaces words deemed inappropriate for polite society by asterisks. I don't know whether ****** or black bastard are among them; it may also be up to the Forum Administrator to determine the level of acceptable language.




Ther is a difference between words "deemed inappropriate for polite society" and PC. When I was a boy you wouldn't have used the "F" word in front of your grandmother, but there was no problem with the "N" word, or upsetting special interest minority groups. 

Now of course the "F" word is in common usage with children *and* their grandmothers. PC accepts the "F" words but has made the "N" word taboo. It is OK for blacks to use it among themselves but not for whitey.


----------



## Macquack (12 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Now of course the "F" word is in common usage with children *and* their grandmothers. PC accepts the "F" words but has made the "N" word taboo. It is OK for blacks to use it among themselves but not for whitey.




The "F" word is universal, it is not derogatory towards a certain race.

I doubt that blacks use the "N" word amongst themselves?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> I doubt that blacks use the "N" word amongst themselves?




They don't mind using terms like "honky" to refer to whites.


----------



## Macquack (12 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> They don't mind using terms like "honky" to refer to whites.




And yes, some white "H" word people refer to blacks as the "N" word. Is that not just "tit for tat"?


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> I doubt that blacks use the "N" word amongst themselves?




You'd be wrong as usual, Mac

http://africanamericanenglish.com/2010/10/22/why-black-people-can-use-the-n-word-a-perspective/


----------



## Macquack (12 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> You'd be wrong as usual, Mac




You're just a white honky, Calliope. I am allowed to say that because I am part of the target group.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> You're just a white honky, Calliope. I am allowed to say that because I am part of the target group.




''white honky"? That's tautoligical Mac. I despair of you ever getting anything right...sigh!


----------



## Julia (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think the ABC has probably been too high brow for many of Howard's Battlers to concern themselves with first hand viewing... they have Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to tell them what to think and complain of the ABC.



Too high brow???  That's patronising and rather insulting.

 And I think you quite wrongly categorise so pejoratively the huge group of people that were designated "Howard's battlers".  It wasn't a term, at the time, used to describe ill-educated, culturally illiterate people which is what you suggest when you say the ABC is too high brow for them, but rather as a recognition of decent ordinary people who do their best to hold down a job, pay their taxes and raise a family.  People who deserved just as much of a chance in life as those with multiple degrees  and a uniform adoration of David Williamson's plays and Peter Carey's novels.

Plenty of these people would no more listen to Bolt and Jones than would you or I.



Macquack said:


> I doubt that blacks use the "N" word amongst themselves?



Contradiction of this already posted.
Similarly 'spic' for Latinos.

There seems to be a peculiar custom of it being OK for specific groups to use terms amongst themselves that would be considered grievous insults from a different group.
One of the most common is in discussions by homosexuals on their activity.  They frequently refer to themselves as 'queers'.  I can just imagine the outcry if any heterosexual used such a term.

The whole PC thing on language can be taken to silly extremes.  Many years ago now there was some sporting ground or stadium, I think in Toowoomba, which had always been known as the "****** Brown Stadium", having been named after one of the town's favourite sons known always only as ****** Brown.

Some aboriginal activist created all sorts of fuss with his objections to the name.  I can't now remember whether it was ever changed.

Likewise, Coon Cheese.  It was a well known brand name long before any of the PC stuff occurred.

I'm completely against insulting others gratuitously, but do get impatient and bored with what is just silliness.

PS  I've just read the above post when it's up and note that asterisks appear where I typed the obvious word.  Just want to be clear that I intended the original word.
That it is not allowed to appear,  i*n the context of this discussion*, is imo a further piece of PC gone nuts.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Julia said:


> PS  I've just read the above post when it's up and note that asterisks appear where I typed the obvious word.  Just want to be clear that I intended the original word.
> That it is not allowed to appear,  i*n the context of this discussion*, is imo a further piece of PC gone nuts.




If you use "nigga" it will pass the test.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> If you use "nigga" it will pass the test.




niggÃ©r


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Too high brow???  That's patronising and rather insulting.
> 
> And I think you quite wrongly categorise so pejoratively the huge group of people that were designated "Howard's battlers".  It wasn't a term, at the time, used to describe ill-educated, culturally illiterate people which is what you suggest when you say the ABC is too high brow for them, but rather as a recognition of decent ordinary people who do their best to hold down a job, pay their taxes and raise a family.  People who deserved just as much of a chance in life as those with multiple degrees  and a uniform adoration of David Williamson's plays and Peter Carey's novels.
> 
> .




Well I hear what you are saying Julia, but most of the people I know who are Howards battlers don't watch the ABC because they think it's high brow. I'm not sure where you get your data from, but mine is just anecdotal I'm afraid.


----------



## luutzu (12 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> You're just a white honky, Calliope. I am allowed to say that because I am part of the target group.




Funny story about name calling, which our PM seem to think is quite acceptable re ISIL and Daesh... anyway back in HS an Asian friend of mine was arguing with a White Aussie - the guy call him stupid nip, he call him dumb skip. 

After they walk away I ask my friend what's a nip and he said "I don't know. Sounds like a bad word." So what's "skip"?   "I don't know either, but it seems to p!ss him off for some reason."


----------



## Joe Blow (12 January 2015)

I think it's possible to discuss racial slurs and other offensive terms without actually posting them. There's a reason why certain words are automatically censored when they are posted and that's because these terms are inherently offensive to a lot of people, and I don't think it's reasonable that they be confronted by obscenities or deeply offensive terms when they visit ASF.

Those visiting ASF represent a very diverse range of ages and sensitivities and I feel that it's my responsibility to respect that.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Well I hear what you are saying Julia, but most of the people I know who are Howards battlers don't watch the ABC because they think it's high brow. I'm not sure where you get your data from, but mine is just anecdotal I'm afraid.




So you have anecdotal evidence from "Howard battlers" that you know, that they don't watch the ABC because it is too highbrow. How many of  these ill-educated, culturally illiterate  "Howard battlers" have you discussed this with?

I suggest your anecdotal evidence is a crock.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> If you are so free to use it then why do you spell the word using a # symbol.




Two reasons, 

1, I wanted to get my message across, and didn't want it to be censored with ******, and have no one know what I am talking about.

2, I understand it is a word that offends some people so choose not to use it.

I think you misunderstood my point, my point is you are free to use the word, no one will arrest you, but that doesn't mean it wont offend people, and it doesn't mean you wont suffer consequences for using it.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I've no idea, but under Sharia law they would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Political correctness is



> the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.




Its a choice, you are not forced to be politically correct, it's whether you choose to be or not.

As I explained there was a practical reason for me not saying the N word in full, as well as a social reason, I have no reason to offend that group at the moment. 

You can say what ever you like about the prophet Muhammed, no one is stopping you. Thats freedom of speech, what you don't understand is that if other people with to refrain from saying things, then that is them exercising their freedom of speech.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> There seems to be a peculiar custom of it being OK for specific groups to use terms amongst themselves that would be considered grievous insults from a different group.
> One of the most common is in discussions by homosexuals on their activity.  They frequently refer to themselves as 'queers'.  I can just imagine the outcry if any heterosexual used such a term.




Thats pretty much universally true, groups often take names that were once used against them and call themselves that.

It's not un common to her soldiers refer to themselves and other solders as "AJ's" or just "J's", but if I civilian called a group of soldiers that in a derogatory tone, they may find the situation gets a bit punchy.

i guess it comes down to intent, there is a big difference between a mate calling you something, and some A'hole you don't know intentionally trying to get a rise out of you.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Two reasons,
> 
> 1, I wanted to get my message across, and didn't want it to be censored with ******, and have no one know what I am talking about.
> 
> ...




Of course I understand and the reality is that we are NOT free to use the word. You censored yourself and if you hadn't Joe would have instead. So pc wins the day. 

Here is a test:  Je suis ******.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Of course I understand and the reality is that we are NOT free to use the word. You censored yourself and if you hadn't Joe would have instead. So pc wins the day.
> 
> Here is a test:  Je suis ******.




As I expected. Instantaneous censorship.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Of course I understand and the reality is that we are NOT free to use the word. You censored yourself and if you hadn't Joe would have instead. So pc wins the day.
> 
> Here is a test:  Je suis ******.




It's Joes website, He is free to do what he likes in regards to moderation.

But as I said, you are free to do what you like on your own website or publication. No one is stopping you saying what you like on your own website.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its a choice, you are not forced to be politically correct, it's whether you choose to be or not.




And you do of course.



> You can say what ever you like about the prophet Muhammed, no one is stopping you. Thats freedom of speech




But you can't publish a caricacture of him. That's not freedom of speech...it's PC 



> what you don't understand is that if other people with to refrain from saying things, then that is them exercising their freedom of speech.




Huh??? Keeping your mouth shut is exercising your freedom of speech?  I'm afraid you've blown what little credibility you had VC.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> But you can't publish a caricacture of him. That's not freedom of speech...it's PC




Who said?

as far as I am aware nothing is stopping you from publishing a cartoon of Muhammad.



> Huh??? Keeping your mouth shut is exercising your freedom of speech?  I'm afraid you've blown what little credibility you had VC.:rolleyes




Yes, If I choose to never use the N word in public ever again, then that is my right, and part of my free speech. Free speech is not about just saying what you want, its also about not being forced to say things.

If I choose to not be offensive that's my right, just as much as it's your right to be offensive.

You have the right to publish a picture of Muhammad if you choose, but others also have the right to not publish a picture if they choose.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> So you have anecdotal evidence from "Howard battlers" that you know, that they don't watch the ABC because it is too highbrow. How many of  these ill-educated, culturally illiterate  "Howard battlers" have you discussed this with?
> 
> I suggest your anecdotal evidence is a crock.





It's you and another that are putting the "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" tag on those people... you obviously have a low regard for Howard's Battlers and therefore don't mix with them. You have also demonstrated on many occasion your low regard for most members on this board by your dismissive superior reach on all things and verballing. 

I think you should apologise to those "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" people for the slur, or is that beneath you?


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I explained there was a practical reason for me not saying the N word in full, as well as a social reason, I have no reason to offend that group at the moment.
> 
> .




Yes but we all know what you meant,  which is just as upsetting to a sensitive person. I think it's a shame we have to modify our behaviours to appease another nation's shame, but then again it is good manners to show some constraint with the context of it's use. On this occasion we were not objectifying the word.

I think a lot of the sting has gone out of many words....facebook and twitter has seen to that, plus saturation by ABC and M rated movies. 

If people like Cassius Clay had there way back in the day, "boy" would have  become an offensive word too and Moonface would be a hate beacon for American liberals for daring to use the word in polite company, let alone a national audience. Michael Parkinson also lost a friend in the boxer when Ali started up on him too.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's you and another that are putting the "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" tag on those people... you obviously have a low regard for Howard's Battlers and therefore don't mix with them.




I'm afraid the Howard battlers you mix with and despise are a product of you imagination.



> You have also demonstrated on many occasion your low regard for most members on this board by your dismissive superior reach on all things and verballing.




OH...THE IRONY!!!



> I think you should apologise to those "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" people for the slur, or is that beneath you?




If you actually know any of these people, who you consider too low-brow to watch the ABC, would it beneath a superior being such as yourself to apologise to them?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> It's not un common to her soldiers refer to themselves and other solders as "AJ's" or just "J's", but if I civilian called a group of soldiers that in a derogatory tone, they may find the situation gets a bit punchy.




What does the expression "AJ" mean in the context of soldiers ?


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid the Howard battlers you mix with and despise are a product of you imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Once again verballing members. Low brow does not translate into the slurs you obviously and thuggishly enjoy attaching to others. I suspect you gain pleasure in distortion so you can maintain the charade of perspicacity; you ain't that clever, trust me. Your high horse is imagined IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What does the expression "AJ" mean in the context of soldiers ?




OK, so it stands for "Army Jerk". Seems relatively innocuous, but when used in the context of a satirical cartoon would it be likely to offend army personnel ?

Could the use of the term be called "bigoted" in that case ?

And it's interesting that VC said that the use of "AJ" in a derogatory manner could result in a "punch up".

That seems to be what happen in France only on a larger scale.

Obviously soldiers have little respect for freedom of speech 

Not trying to pick a fight VC, but it seems that the definition of "bigotry" and the consequences of it is a constantly shifting battleground.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Once again verballing members. Low brow does not translate into the slurs you obviously and thuggishly enjoy attaching to others. I suspect you gain pleasure in distortion so you can maintain the charade of perspicacity; you ain't that clever, trust me. Your high horse is imagined IMO




WOW. I certainly have got under your skin, and destroyed "your charade of perspicacity".  I suggest you take a bex and have a good lie down and chill out.

And you must try to stop attributing your qualities to others.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What does the expression "AJ" mean in the context of soldiers ?




 Army Jerk. A derogatory term often used by civilians, RAAF and Navy personnel in reference to soldiers in townships with large concentrations of soldiers (particularly Darwin and Townsville). Also often used by soldiers in reference to other soldiers behaving badly in public, for example "He was being a real AJ" or "They were acting like a bunch of real AJ's and giving the rest of us a bad name". As in 'this was written by an A.J....'. Like many derogatory terms, AJ has been "taken back" by the AJs. In other words it's OK for us to say it, but you might get a slap if you say it, depending on tone and location.



SirRumpole said:


> OK, so it stands for "Army Jerk". Seems relatively innocuous, but when used in the context of a satirical cartoon would it be likely to offend army personnel ?




Depends on context, and who's saying it, a young girl might walk into a room of friends and say hello by saying "Hey B#tchs", yet it probably wouldn't fly for me to offer that greeting, unless I was very close to the group of young women.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And it's interesting that VC said that the use of "AJ" in a derogatory manner could result in a "punch up".




I didn't say I condoned it, but yes, young drunk idiots (military or civilian) can resort to pugilism when they feel disrespected, I would think that if your from a Military town, and find yourself using the term AJ in a way that is designed to offend an individual you have encountered, you may actually want a fight, which many idiots do, they like to try their hand at boxing a couple of "AJ's", especially around singleton, so much so the training courses there often ban the trainees from drinking in town now.

There is a big difference to working out a difference between two idiots fighting with their fists due to a direct personal attack, than a mass murder because of a cartoon in a newspaper no one is forcing you to read.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> WOW. I certainly have got under your skin, .





My guess is that is what you set out to do as a recidivist troll, but I have been around too long to care about small mindsets.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> But you can't publish a caricacture of him.



Yes, you can, in theory.  But as VC has pointed out, a personal choice might rather not do so.



> Huh??? Keeping your mouth shut is exercising your freedom of speech?  I'm afraid you've blown what little credibility you had VC.



Well, I think VC has actually enhanced his credibility with a sensible explanation of why we would often choose not to go round gratuitously being rude to others.



Tisme said:


> It's you and another that are putting the "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" tag on those people...



Tisme, please don't distort what others have said.  I did not put any such tag on the 'battlers'.  I suggested that your determination that they don't like the ABC because it's too 'high brow' implied that they were ill-educated and culturally illiterate.  Big difference!

That group of people seemed often to include people like teachers, nurses et al, especially in single income families, not just people whom you regard as, apparently, low brow.

For that matter, barring esoteric discussions about the finer points of poetry or orchestration, eg, I don't see what's so culturally uber sophisticated about the ABC.  Have a listen to some of the absolute junk on Local Radio some time.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

> you may actually want a fight, which many idiots do, they like to try their hand at boxing a couple of "AJ's", especially around singleton, so much so the training courses there often ban the trainees from drinking in town now.




That is very sad.

 I wonder why this disrespect for the armed forces has arisen. There seems to be a general disrespect from certain bogan communities for authority figures that is not warranted. 

I wonder if it's linked to disrespect for the police who some in lower socio-economic communities perceive as the "enemy".

To me, both groups are doing an important and necessary job and as long as they do it with respect to those they come in contact with, deserve respect in return.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Yes, you can, in theory.




But not in practice.



> Well, I think VC has actually enhanced his credibility with a sensible explanation of why we would often choose not to go round gratuitously being rude to others.




I don't think I am being gratuitously rude if my considered opinon is that most of what he says, has no bearing on Freedom of Speech...he is just giving us a gratuitous lesson in his version of *manners* in his defence of Political Correctness.

VC and I are poles apart on Political Correctness, and never the twain shall meet. But I think we can agree on the old adage that "manners maketh man" and leave it at that.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> But as I said, you are free to do what you like on your own website or publication. No one is stopping you saying what you like on your own website.




That is not what you said originally because you have now qualified the statement by adding "on your own website". Your original statement was simply


Value Collector said:


> …... *but you are free to use it.*



but this is not true because this forum has yielded to political correctness (Joe has his reasons). I am just pointing out the reality. It's one thing to be politically correct, it is another to be delusional. I like to call a sp#de a spade and in this case it is abundantly clear that our freedom is constrained.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> For that matter, barring esoteric discussions about the finer points of poetry or orchestration, eg, I don't see what's so culturally uber sophisticated about the ABC.  Have a listen to some of the absolute junk on Local Radio some time.




Me neither and that was the point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion. 

I think I have made it fairly clear in previous posts that I do spend a lot of time with those people both of you tagged as " ill-educated and culturally illiterate", which I did not. My wife and I have paid rents for many out of our/my own pockets to keep a roof over their heads, fed them, furnished their digs etc all for no gain whatsoever except the pride I get in helping out, I have no doubt they are equal to me in many respects. 

I don't care that you and Calliope assume I'm worth caustic attention, I know I have the runs on the board and I don't apologise for using my freedom of speech on this board. By all means attack the opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification rather than predicate an argument on a formulated myth of your own making. Being a troll, Calliope will jump on that bandwagon first chance he/she gets, hardly the support you could deem valuable.

I hope I have made you uncomfortable, like you made me in having to defend an indefensible slight you put on me by inference. I also hope you don't feel it for too long though because I do admire like your underlying niceness.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> That is not what you said originally because you have now qualified the statement by adding "on your own website". Your original statement was simply
> 
> .




That is what I meant, Offcourse the owners of private media platforms don't have to publish anything you want.

A newspaper editor refusing to put your letter in his newspaper is not taking away your free speech, he is exercising his own rights to publish what he wants. Same with this and other websites. 

Free speech is about having 







> the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.




You have the right to express your opinion, but that doesn't mean owners of private media have to publish it, If you want that opinion published you may have to do it yourself.



> but this is not true because this forum has yielded to political correctness (Joe has his reasons).




And Joe has the right to do that, If you come to my house, and I say you can't smoke in my house, I am not taking away you right to smoke, I am enforcing my right to control what goes on in my property. You can leave and smoke in your home, on the street corner or even someone else's home who doesn't mind you smoking.

Same thing with a private website, Newspaper, billboard etc the owners of that media can control how that media is used, and that's not a breech of your free speech.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

I wonder if anyone has any comment on this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-for-discrimination-law-changes/6013946

I think we have discussed 18C at length, but I wonder if the French experience is any reason to re-visit them.

To me, the laws we have now strike a reasonable balance between freedom of speech and unnecessary vilification. 

Why should the Charlie Hebdo affair have any impact on those laws ?


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if anyone has any comment on this
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-for-discrimination-law-changes/6013946
> 
> ...




Apparently murder is a great shock absorber:




> THE leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia has described the callous killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by Parisian Islamic terrorists as a “cure”.
> 
> Ismail Alwahwah, who also attended rallies with Martin Place gunman Man Haron Monis, wrote a lengthy diatribe on the attack in which he claimed the attacks were a reaction to “daily humiliation” of Muslims and “insults to their book and prophet”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And Joe has the right to do that …..




*I did not say he doesn't.*

You are completely missing the point VC that you made an incorrect statement. I am simply stating that *we do not in reality* have the level of freedom that you claimed we have.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Being a troll, Calliope will jump on that bandwagon first chance he/she gets, hardly the support you could deem valuable.




I fully understand your problem. I know you were just shooting off your mouth when you said the ABC was too highbrow for some Liberal supporters. As a Labor supporter is is quite natural that you would say that type of thing...and of course you meant it to be derogatory.

What I don't understand is why you have put some much time and energy and bile into attacking those who recognised your intention to belittle those people.

No amount of weasel words lke; 



> point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion



or


> I think I have made it fairly clear in previous posts that I do spend a lot of time with those people both of you tagged as " ill-educated and culturally illiterate", which I did not.



or


> by all means attack the opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification rather than predicate an argument on a formulated myth of your own making




can change what you said, nor your intent.

And now are you trying to give the impression that you and your wife succour all battlers, or just the Howard battlers that you belittled.? Strange that you have never let on the number of these Howard battlers (i.e. Liberals), whom you claim gave you your anecdotal evidence that the ABC was too high-brow for them.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

> “Woe, time and again, to all those who point the finger at any pressure when it gets a blast from the Muslims, regardless of size......For the accusation is ready; You justify the explosion, you justify terrorism,” Alwahwah wrote.




Well, in a free society he is obviously allowed to say such things, but do we have a right to say he can't say them here, and to deport him to from whence he came, if we can legally do that ?

Freedom of speech has its consequences after all ...


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> You are completely missing the point VC that you made an incorrect statement. I am simply stating that *we do not in reality* have the level of freedom that you claimed we have.




How so, What's stopping you getting a soap box standing in the public space, and clearly stating any opinions you have?

That's free speech, 

Me ignoring you, or refusing to video you and put you on the TV is not me taking away your freedom of speech.

Free speech is about not being arrested for stating an opinion, and not having you book banned or censored.

Look at north korea, they don't have free speech, Australia does, In North Korea standing on your soap box in public results in you being jailed or killed, your books burned etc. Give me a specific example of an opinion that would be illegal to hold or talk about in Australia.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's free speech,
> 
> Me ignoring you, or refusing to video you and put you on the TV is not me taking away your freedom of speech.
> 
> Free speech is about not being arrested for stating an opinion, and not having you book banned or censored.




Last time I looked in the dictionary the word *freedom* (as in the state of being free) was defined as, “the unrestricted use of something”.
So any kind of restriction will mean that freedom has been lost.
On this forum we do not have complete* freedom* of speech because certain words are censored. I am not complaining about this. I am just calling it how it is.

Nonetheless on this forum we do at least have *free* speech because Joe does not charge us anything for the words we post.  Imagine if we all had to pay Joe one cent for every word we posted. It would have its benefits. Some posters might choose to be more economical with their words (not mentioning any names).




Value Collector said:


> Look at north korea, they don't have free speech, Australia does, In North Korea standing on your soap box in public results in you being jailed or killed, your books burned etc. Give me a specific example of an opinion that would be illegal to hold or talk about in Australia.




How about the same opinions as Geert Wilders? And how about you ask him if he thinks Australia has freedom of speech.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Me neither and that was the point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion.



Tisme, what you said, and what I responded to, was:


> I think the ABC has probably been too high brow for many of Howard's Battlers to concern themselves with first hand viewing... they have Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to tell them what to think and complain of the ABC.




That is unequivocally being derogatory to the people you call Howard's Battlers, especially the determination that they are dependent on shock jocks to provide them with an opinion they would otherwise be unable to form.



> My wife and I have paid rents for many out of our/my own pockets to keep a roof over their heads, fed them, furnished their digs etc all for no gain whatsoever except the pride I get in helping out,



I share your satisfaction in being able to help.  I've said many times that money is meaningless of itself, but so useful for what it can do. 



> I don't care that you and Calliope assume I'm worth caustic attention,



Please don't lump me in with Calliope who seems to set out to inflame much of the time.  I have no wish to be unnecessarily involved in any sort of altercation, but at the same time find it difficult to ignore what come across as class/wealth/education/culture divides.



> I know I have the runs on the board and I don't apologise for using my freedom of speech on this board.



And neither you should.  But as VC has lucidly explained, a likely corollary of using that freedom of speech means that others who take issue with a point you might make will express that disagreement.



> I hope I have made you uncomfortable, like you made me in having to defend an indefensible slight you put on me by inference. I also hope you don't feel it for too long though because I do admire like your underlying niceness.



No, you've not made me uncomfortable, Tisme.  I stand by my original objection to what you wrote.

But I'll also acknowledge that pretty much all of yesterday I found your posts incomprehensible, as others also noted, and am perfectly willing to take the comment to which I objected as something you wouldn't have meant to sound as superior as it did.

The typed word, devoid of voice tone, body language, general demeanour can create impressions we never intended which is probably the case here.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Interesting reaction from another hater from the other side of the fence:



> Conservative “Christian” blowhard Bryan Fischer claimed on his radio show that God sanctioned the terrorist attack in France as punishment for blasphemy against Christianity.
> 
> The terrorist attack on satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in Paris left 12 people dead and caused international outrage and grief. But here in America, conservative “Christians” have used the tragedy to call for censorship, an increase of religious fervor, and hate against Muslims.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I fully understand your problem. I know you were just shooting off your mouth when you said the ABC was too highbrow for some Liberal supporters. As a Labor supporter is is quite natural that you would say that type of thing...and of course you meant it to be derogatory.
> 
> What I don't understand is why you have put some much time and energy and bile into attacking those who recognised your intention to belittle those people.
> 
> ...




blah blah blah still trolling for a rise and getting the facts wrong deliberately. Not interested in you or your consort's back biting and feigned indignation .... maybe both of you should go mix it with the people you denigrated and see what they think of your impudence in calling them  "ill-educated and culturally illiterate" which I will remind you both of from time to time when you try to imply you have some kind of empathy for the working class you obviously disdain


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Please don't lump me in with Calliope who seems to set out to inflame much of the time.  I have no wish to be unnecessarily involved in any sort of altercation, but at the same time find it difficult to ignore what come across as class/wealth/education/culture divides.
> 
> 
> 
> .




You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas I'm afraid.


----------



## DB008 (13 January 2015)

Just saw that Pickering has been warned that a recent cartoon he drew (Sundar just gone) has offended Muslims and he has been offered police protection.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Last time I looked in the dictionary the word *freedom* (as in the state of being free) was defined as, “the unrestricted use of something”.
> So any kind of restriction will mean that freedom has been lost.
> .




freedom of speech definition- The right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government



> On this forum we do not have complete* freedom* of speech because certain words are censored. I am not complaining about this. I am just calling it how it is.




Yes, But that's not what freedom of speech is, the right to freedom of speech doesn't ensure you can speak freely where ever you want, private groups and private media can have their own rules. As I have said, Joe is not taking away your rights to freedom of speech. You have the right to express your opinions in the public square, or on your own media, or any other media that allows you.




> How about the same opinions as Geert Wilders? And how about you ask him if he thinks Australia has freedom of speech




Can you give me a specific example of something he has said which you wouldn't have the right to say in Australia.

Also keep in mind that freedom of speech simply means you can say what you like without government censorship or restraint, It doesn't mean there won't be consequences for you saying certain things, if those things are protected under other laws, or are untrue etc

Eg, freedom of speech does not mean a Doctor can disclose confidential medical information, and it doesn't render you immune from a defamation action if your found guilty of any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation, decreases the respect, regard.


Geert Wilders is being charge with inciting hate, and racial discrimination.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 January 2015)

Calliope, stop trolling. Your sole purpose here at ASF appears to be to provoke and attack others, and turn reasonable discussions into flame fests. This is your final warning before a permanent ban. You have had more than enough chances. Enough is enough. Back off, or face the consequences.

Tisme: Your lumping in of Julia with Calliope is unjustified. Yes, Calliope is a recidivist troll. However, just because two people are disagreeing with you at the same time, it doesn't follow that they share the same agenda or are in any way equivalent.

This thread has gotten far too personal. As soon as the discussion switches from the issue being debated to those participating in the debate, things tend to go downhill rapidly.

Please discuss *the topic of the thread*, rather than provoking or attacking each other.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Just saw that Pickering has been warned that a recent cartoon he drew (Sundar just gone) has offended Muslims and he has been offered police protection.




Very interesting. Do you mean the cartoon at this link http://pickeringpost.com/cartoon/4379

Now who will be brave enough to place a copy of it here? 
I think no-one, myself included.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Geert Wilders is being charge with inciting hate, and racial discrimination.




Exactly. Spot on!
So in respect of the topic of this thread we are now really getting to the point of 'Case Proven', are we not?

(btw this is second time around for GW. The first attempt failed and I sincerely hope this second attempt fails as well).


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Very interesting. Do you mean the cartoon at this link http://pickeringpost.com/cartoon/4379
> 
> Now who will be brave enough to place a copy of it here?
> I think no-one, myself included.




It's certainly not Halal.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Exactly. Spot on!
> So in respect of the topic of this thread we are now really getting to the point of 'Case Proven', are we not?




Yes..._quod erat demonstrandum_


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Just saw that Pickering has been warned that a recent cartoon he drew (Sundar just gone) has offended Muslims and he has been offered police protection.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Exactly. Spot on!
> So in respect of the topic of this thread we are now really getting to the point of 'Case Proven', are we not?
> 
> (btw this is second time around for GW. The first attempt failed and I sincerely hope this second attempt fails as well).




Inciting racial hatred is in the same league as defamation, just because you have the right to  freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defame people and not have consequences.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Inciting racial hatred is in the same league as defamation, just because you have the right to  freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defame people and not have consequences.




As I understand it, Wilders is vociferous against Islam, he said



> "I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam".




As Islam is not a race, but an ideology, why should what he says against Islam come under the Racial Discrimination Act ?

Plenty of people on this board have said words to the same effect. Should we all be arrested ?

The idea of banning Wilders is quite reprehensible. As long as he delineates the discussion to the ideology and not the people practising it, he has every right to say what he wants.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Inciting racial hatred is in the same league as defamation, just because you have the right to  freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defame people and not have consequences.




Well we can leave it to the Dutch legal system to sort it out but if GW goes down for merely asking a group of his supporters the question, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this country?" I think it will be a very sad day  for the future of freedom of speech -  Q.E.D.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

If Charlie Hebdo had been in Australia, the cartoonists would have been arrested by the State which would have saved the terrorists the trouble of murdering them



> Before the parliament is a Private Senators Bill ”” the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2014 ”” which better protects our freedom of expression by amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1995 by removing the words ‘‘offend’’ and ‘‘insult’’.
> 
> *Section 18C makes unlawful acts that may offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin*






> If our political class were to rise above partisan politics and build a legislative monument to the human price paid by France for its defence of freedom of expression by voting for the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2014 they would find themselves in esteemed company.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...om-of-expression/story-e6frg6zo-1227182629724


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Well we can leave it to the Dutch legal system to sort it out but if GW goes down for merely asking a group of his supporters the question, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this country?" I think it will be a very sad day  for the future of freedom of speech -  Q.E.D.




He didn't just ask that, he refered to them as Moroccan scum.

But even if he was just asking do you want more Moroccans, thats like asking do you want more chinese. It's not a valid question in a society where race is not meant to be a factor


----------



## Macquack (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> If Charlie Hebdo had been in Australia, the cartoonists would have been arrested by the State which would have saved the terrorists the trouble of murdering them





Maybe we are more civilised than the French. Your example says it all.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As I understand it, Wilders is vociferous against Islam, he said
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If he limited his comments to questioning Islam, he wouldn't have a problem. But trying to rally the crowd against "Moroccan scum" is very different.

I am all for protesting religion, especially Islam, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Implicating a persons race or nationality is not the correct thing to do.

Also, curry is a food, not a race, but calling an Indian a "Curry muncher" is a racial slur. So just because you don't mention a race, doesn't mean your not making judgements based on race. 

I have no problem attacking Islam, but am turned off when protests become more about hating on "rag heads" or "the dirty mussos" etc


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

The West is starting to gain a little courage and follow the example set by Charlie Hebdo. Threats of violence and intimidation can be countered when the media shows a little backbone.
This is the cover of the next edition of Charlie Hebdo which is expected to sell millions of copies.









> The cover has also been published online by a number of media organisations around the world, including The Australian, the ABC, The Daily Telegraph, news.com, 7News.com.au and 9news.com.au in Australia.
> 
> In the United States, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, LA Times and Huffington Post were among organisations to publish the image.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

A dangerous practice.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> He didn't just ask that, he refered to them as Moroccan scum.




Did he really? I’m not aware of that but how about quoting your source and I might take notice?



Value Collector said:


> But even if he was just asking do you want more Moroccans, thats like asking do you want more chinese. It's not a valid question in a society where race is not meant to be a factor




What’s wrong with asking do you want more chinese? 
And what is wrong with asking any of the following:
 - Do you want more legal immigration?
-  Do you want more illegal immigration (i.e. boat arrivals)?
- Do you want more muslims ?
- Do you want more Iraqis?

These are just questions. If it is wrong to ask them then it is just more resounding proof that we are controlled by political correctness and censorship and without doubt we have lost our freedom of speech – Q.E.D.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Maybe we are more civilised than the French. Your example says it all.




I think it is very wrong for you to suggest that the French are less civilised than we are. You are being insulting and derogatory and I am sure that many French people would be offended.


----------



## Macquack (13 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Just saw that Pickering has been warned that a recent cartoon he drew (Sundar just gone) has offended Muslims and he has been offered police protection.




Larry Pickering is a scum bag.

Hello, lets jump on the bandwagon and insult all muslims, you missed the boat you d***head.

In that audio on 4BC Radio, the wanker responds to the following questions:-
_Loretta 4BC announcer_
"So you have posted something of the prophet Muhammad on you website?"
_Pickering_
"*Absolutely*"
_Loretta 4BC announcer_
"Just describe what was that you posted?"
_Pickering_
"*No*, go to the site and have a look yourself."

So the big hero has not got the balls to verbalise what he actually drew.

And the prick gets police protection. Where was the protection for all the people that Pickering fleeced with his underhanded and fraudulent scams?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/larry-pickering--the-conman-stalking-gillard-20120820-24hxi.html
And for Noco
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...igating-julia-gillard-for-the-awu-fraud-scam/


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> In that audio on 4BC Radio, the wanker responds to the following questions:-
> _Loretta 4BC announcer_
> "So you have posted something of the prophet Muhammad on you website?"
> _Pickering_
> ...




Very good answer. The lazy, dumb journo should have looked at the web-site before starting the interview. She was clearly judging the content without having seen it.



Macquack said:


> So the big hero has not got the balls to verbalise what he actually drew.




No he just had the balls to publish on his web-site.
Which requires the greater set of balls?


----------



## Macquack (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Very good answer. The lazy, dumb journo should have looked at the web-site before starting the interview. She was clearly judging the content without having seen it.





Rubbish, it was radio, not television. Listeners can't see the cartoon, so the radio announcer asked Pickering the question.
BTW, the scum bag goes on to attack the radio announcer for no reason what so ever.


Bintang said:


> No he just had the balls to publish on his web-site.
> Which requires the greater set of balls?




The radio announcer was a woman, so I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Rubbish, it was radio, not television. Listeners can't see the cartoon, so the radio announcer asked Pickering the question.
> BTW, the scum bag goes on to attack the radio announcer for no reason what so ever.
> 
> The radio announcer was a woman, so I don't know what you are talking about.




In other words you are saying if it had been television they would have shown viewers the cartoon,  hell would have frozen over and the sky would have been filled with a flock of flying pigs.

If the dumb, lazy radio journo had bothered to look at the web-site herself she would have been able to describe the contents for her listeners herself.

I didn’t say ‘who’ has the greater balls I said ‘which’ (referring to an action) so I was not referring to the woman. But if I had been referring to her surely the answer is obvious for anyone who knows the rudimentaries of anatomy.


----------



## Macquack (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> In other words you are saying if it had been television they would have shown viewers the cartoon,  hell would have frozen over and the sky would have been filled with a flock of flying pigs.
> 
> If the dumb, lazy radio journo had bothered to look at the web-site herself she would have been able to describe the contents for her listeners herself.
> 
> I didn’t say ‘who’ has the greater balls I said ‘which’ (referring to an action) so I was not referring to the woman. But if I had been referring to her surely the answer is obvious for anyone who knows the rudimentaries of anatomy.




What do you think they got Pickering on the radio program for?

To ask him the question of what he actually drew in the cartoon.

The radio announcer did not draw the cartoon and there has been conjecture on this forum of what he actually drew.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> What do you think they got Pickering on the radio program for?
> 
> To ask him the question of what he actually drew in the cartoon.




You sound very authorative about this.  Please tell us how you know this to be the reason.

But perhaps they just wanted to know if he had any fear of reprisal for his recent artwork. You have conveniently neglected to mention that part of the interview.



Macquack said:


> The radio announcer did not draw the cartoon and there has been conjecture on this forum of what he actually drew.




Well all it takes to dispel any conjecture is to type the word ‘pickering’  into Google. Which I did and afterwards I posted the relevant link for those who find this small task too difficult.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

The New Age of Intolerance. Disrespect the views of others at your peril.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Very interesting. Do you mean the cartoon at this link
> Now who will be brave enough to place a copy of it here?
> I think no-one, myself included.



Well, "7.30" this evening broadcast several of the cartoons.  Shall we wait and see if the sky falls in on the ABC?



Value Collector said:


> Inciting racial hatred is in the same league as defamation, just because you have the right to  freedom of speech doesn't mean you can defame people and not have consequences.



+1.   I don't understand the seemingly growing desire to ever push the boundaries on how hateful and insulting one person or organisation can be to another.  Some of the social media posts just leave me speechless, and now we seem here to be engaged in a discussion about who can be the most nasty and yet not expect retaliation.



SirRumpole said:


> As I understand it, Wilders is vociferous against Islam,
> 
> As Islam is not a race, but an ideology, why should what he says against Islam come under the Racial Discrimination Act ?
> 
> ...



I suppose it's how he expresses himself.  He has been allowed to speak in Australia, albeit finding himself confronted with mass protests from the usual objectors.

Isn't that how it's meant to work?  He can come here, express his concerns about mass Islamic migration to whomever wants to listen, but also be prepared to expect some fairly vehement objections to what he says.



Calliope said:


> If Charlie Hebdo had been in Australia, the cartoonists would have been arrested by the State which would have saved the terrorists the trouble of murdering them



As I've already mentioned, "7.30" broadcast some of the cartoons this evening.  I'll be a bit surprised if the program fails to go to air tomorrow because they've all been arrested.



Macquack said:


> Larry Pickering is a *scum bag.*
> 
> Hello, lets jump on the bandwagon and insult all muslims, you missed the boat you *d***head.*
> 
> ...



Macquack, are you not yourself doing just what you're denigrating others for doing with your unpleasant language?


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> As I've already mentioned, "7.30" broadcast some of the cartoons this evening.  I'll be a bit surprised if the program fails to go to air tomorrow because they've all been arrested.




I have already covered this in my post #198 about the media starting to show a little backbone. The State wouldn't dare apply Section I8C in the face of a little media solidarity.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Well, "7.30" this evening broadcast several of the cartoons.  Shall we wait and see if the sky falls in on the ABC?




I’m curious to know which cartoons.  Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson is quoted by The Australian as saying that “while many of the religiously themed cartoons in Charlie Hebdo would not fall foul of the discrimination act ……. racial stereo-typing of Jews and other ethnic groups would create too many legal issues”

So I suspect the ABC has been fairly selective about what it has shown.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> I’m curious to know which cartoons.  Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson is quoted by The Australian as saying that “while many of the religiously themed cartoons in Charlie Hebdo would not fall foul of the discrimination act ……. racial stereo-typing of Jews and other ethnic groups would create too many legal issues”
> 
> So I suspect the ABC has been fairly selective about what it has shown.



Sorry, Bintang.  I couldn't describe them now.  I'm sure you would be able to see the program segment on the ABC website.
They did put up English language translations, not sure of whether for all of them.
I could take or leave them.  Couldn't get excited either way, but that's all very well I suppose when I'm not the target.


----------



## Bintang (13 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I have already covered this in my post #198 about the media starting to show a little backbone. The State wouldn't dare apply Section I8C in the face of a little media solidarity.




I can't imagine anyone will publish Larry Pickering's cartoon though, which by the way I think is highly insulting to pigs.

There are some brilliant comments on the web-site such as this one:

_"Larry ol_mate, I have been enjoying your work since I was a W#g, when I became a 'New Bloody Australian', your work was more enjoyable. Now that I am 'An Old Bugger' I can't live without logging on every day. You have problems Larry, if the Jihadist don't get you, the Law under section 18c will. That is unless Abbott somehow finds some guts and repeals this section. I was horrified that Charlie Hebdo magazine cannot be printed in Aus, so much for free country, that I migrated to. Take care old mate and watch your back"_

I do realise I am assuming the above to be genuine and I could be wrong. NB: The original post uses the letter 'o' in place of the # symbol.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Did he really? I’m not aware of that but how about quoting your source and I might take notice?
> 
> 
> .




Google his name and "Moroccan scum" and you will find multiple sources.




> What’s wrong with asking do you want more chinese?




When it is followed by a hateful racist rant about Asians there would be a lot wrong with it, but apart from that basing immigration decisions on race is wrong, we have had the "white Australia policy" before, is that something you find moral?




> And what is wrong with asking any of the following:
> - Do you want more legal immigration?
> -  Do you want more illegal immigration (i.e. boat arrivals)?
> - Do you want more muslims ?
> ...




Asking whether we want move immigration is a valid question, asking if we want to deny certain races immigration is not.


----------



## pixel (14 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Sorry, Bintang.  I couldn't describe them now.  I'm sure you would be able to see the program segment on the ABC website.
> They did put up English language translations, not sure of whether for all of them.
> I could take or leave them.  Couldn't get excited either way, but that's all very well I suppose when I'm not the target.




They didn't show Pickering's Halal pig on a pencil spit, but some of the pointier Charlie Hebdo sketches were displayed, including the one with the stereotypical Rabbi.
And to balance, they interviewed a Muslim cleric from Melbourne who pulled the minority card, claiming the right to be offended if the prophet was depicted. He wanted religion be added to gender and race in Australia's muzzling laws.

My response to that argument would be "Grow up and get over it. You can't choose your gender or race. But you can choose your religion, and you can choose whether you want to take offense or not." 
No voluntary member of any "minority" is obliged to view images or read opinions unflattering of their chosen Holy Cows. If you want to live in a free country like France or Australia, then leave your hang-ups at the border. Alternatively, stay in another place of your choice where you're not exposed to opinions or images you can't stomach.



> Too often in life, something happens and we blame other people for us not being happy or satisfied or fulfilled. So the point is, we all have choices, and we make the choice to accept people or situations or to not accept situations.
> 
> Tom Brady
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> I can't imagine anyone will publish Larry Pickering's cartoon though, which by the way I think is highly insulting to pigs.
> 
> There are some brilliant comments on the web-site such as this one:
> 
> ...




Nah. Section 18C will not be applied by this government. They haven't got the guts to apply it and they haven't got the guts to repeal it.  They got Andrew Bolt under 18C on a trumped up charge, but that was under a Labor government and a Labor appointed Judge. There was no outcry because all the usual suspects hate Bolt because he stands for freedom of expression. But I think the tide is now turning and freedom of expression will get a better run, thanks to Charlie Hebro.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Google his name and "Moroccan scum" and you will find multiple sources.




Alright, so the 'Moroccan scum' remark was made during a subsequent TV interview and in the context that Moroccans are over-represented in the Netherland’s crime statistics. Heck, why should there be any objection to using the word scum to describe criminals. It shouldn’t matter what the colour of their skin is or where they come from.  If they are criminals they all deserve to be called scum.  Macquack, you have even used the word ‘scum’ yourself in reference to Larry Pickering.



Value Collector said:


> Asking whether we want more immigration is a valid question, asking if we want to deny certain races immigration is not.




I see no reason (other than political correctness) why denying immigration to certain races cannot be a point of discussion.  We cannot allow everyone in the world who wants to immigrate to our country to do so. We have to make choices and be selective and in order to do that there has to be a discussion.


----------



## luutzu (14 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Nah. Section 18C will not be applied by this government. They haven't got the guts to apply it and they haven't got the guts to repeal it.  They got Andrew Bolt under 18C on a trumped up charge, but that was under a Labor government and a Labor appointed Judge. There was no outcry because all the usual suspects hate Bolt because he stands for freedom of expression. But I think the tide is now turning and freedom of expression will get a better run, thanks to Charlie Hebro.




Shouldn't mistake bullying for courage. Shouldn't mistake hate speech for freedom of expression.

We all could beat up any five year olds, but we don't. Not because of its legality, but because of our own moral judgment. 

We all could say whatever comes to mind, but if it insult or hurt others, maybe we shouldn't... and if we have the urge to just to peed them off, the brave thing to do is to check our "facts" else it'd just show our ignorance and idiocy.

Apparently, it's open season on Muslims and Islam. So why is it brave to kick them over just for the heck of it? Never took much to follow the crowd; never took much to not think about the "facts" or never question your beliefs.


You seriously think insulting Islam and picking on Muslims hurt the terrorists? They're terrorist against us because they've "known" and "seen" these hate already - doing more of it will just reinforce those beliefs and strengthen their resolves. So the only ones you're offending and making life difficult for with these rubbish are the innocent Muslims who are with us, who want to help us, who want to live life normally... and because of all these "braveries" will now worry whenever their kids or their spouse leave the house or catch a train or go out with friends.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> I see no reason (other than political correctness) why denying immigration to certain races cannot be a point of discussion.




Ok, perhaps thats something you need to work on.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Ok, perhaps thats something you need to work on.




On the contrary there is no need at all for me to do that for as long as I have a choice in the matter.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Also, curry is a food, not a race, but calling an Indian a "Curry muncher" is a racial slur. So just because you don't mention a race, doesn't mean your not making judgements based on race.




I happen to like curries, so I could fall into the above description, and I'm not Indian. I could see how the term could be used as a form of endearment. 

I think we have got to a point of hypersensitivity where everyone is on edge about what they can and can't say and we really don't know how to behave naturally. This is a  great pity because we used to be a laid back and relaxed country, now all we seem to do is worry that others may think we are racist just because of a few slang terms thrown around without any intention to disparage others.


----------



## Tink (14 January 2015)

Well said, Rumpole.
I still remember my father laughing at those shows they took off, and I am allowed to talk. Everything was taken lightly, and in fun.

If you think people are born good, as you say, VC, then we don't need these rules to tell us how to speak and how to react, you are contradicting yourself.

We grew up with respect for all, no matter who they were, and same goes for this generation, our children.
I agree with you, Calliope, there was no swearing in our home, and I still dislike it. 

The biggest division in society is PC, look no further, and I am all for the change of 18C which was amended in 1995 (I think).

We have all become way too precious with any comment or criticism, and people are quick to yell out racist, sexist, bigot, and whatever else to silence you.
I actually think it has become worse.

Julia, the only reason I brought up that documentary is because we didn't know that they were pedophiles, and as you have said yourself, try ringing with a different opinion, they say, thanks, we will take that as a comment. 
At the end of that show, they were PC enough to add a foot note, as others have mentioned, the untouchables, which I think is wrong when we should all be in this country together giving our thoughts, not howled down and strangled in silence.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23929&page=76

Creating a division in society, as with Andrew Bolt, giving an opinion, shouldn't end up with legal proceedings.

I remember when Adam Goodes came forward about that 13 year old girl. They were at the football for goodness sake. 
Just silly.

A lot of good comments in here.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I happen to like curries, so I could fall into the above description, and I'm not Indian. I could see how the term could be used as a form of endearment.
> 
> .




My point is, that race does not have to be explicitly mention for it to be clear that it's racism informing peoples actions. 

For example, If you asked a friend how his work life was, and he said "Good, except my boss has higher a bunch of curry munchers" you would know exactly what hi meant, straight away you would picture in you mind his work place with a few new Indian employees. 

Rum pole, certainly you can understand that racism can show it's head through attacks on the culture that's associated with the race that is the victim of the hate.



> I think we have got to a point of hypersensitivity where everyone is on edge about what they can and can't say and we really don't know how to behave naturally. This is a  great pity because we used to be a laid back and relaxed country, now all we seem to do is worry that others may think we are racist just because of a few slang terms thrown around without any intention to disparage others




It's the intention that is the most important part to me.

While I do think the vast majority of people are good people, we humans do have some damaging traits that are left over from our evolutionary past, for example the tendency to fall back on tribalism, which can result in xenophobia and racism, and also a tendency for males to have violent out bursts.

when we recognise these things, they should be brought to the persons attention, I am certainly not immune, I have fallen into racist thoughts, and it's something you have to work on.

I have had conversations about religion with people, and as the conversation progresses with some people, it can become clear that the underlying problem the person has with the religion we are discussing is based on xenophobia.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Tink said:


> If you think people are born good, as you say, VC, then we don't need these rules to tell us how to speak and how to react, you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> .




I said the majority of people are good.

But even good people can say and do things that are a bit off, such as holding opinions which are racist. Take the older generation for example. My grandmother is lovely, charitable and a really decent person, But she can be racist sometimes, she doesn't like to go to the city anymore because she thinks there is to many Asians.

Now I put that down to her generation, she didn't grow up with exposure to different cultures, and her love of Anglo Australian culture (tribalism) results in her being xenophobic. If she was younger I might spend more time trying to sway her opinion to try and get her to embrace other cultures, but she's not got long left.  



> We grew up with respect for all, no matter who they were, and same goes for this generation, our children.
> I agree with you, Calliope, there was no swearing in our home, and I still dislike it.




Talk to some of the older generation and you will find a much large percentage of them do not have respect for all.



> The biggest division in society is PC, look no further,




Really? That's the biggest problem?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

> Rum pole, certainly you can understand that racism can show it's head through attacks on the culture that's associated with the race that is the victim of the hate.




Yes, Val ue Collector, I can see that can happen when it applies to a single race or culture, but your point is irrelevant when it comes to the original point I made which was in reference to Islam, which can encompass any number of races and cultures.

So are you really saying that if I said "Islam is a silly religion", I would automatically be racially villifying every race who happened to have Muslims as members of that race and I should therefore come under the auspices of the Racial Discrimination Act ?


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, Val ue Collector, I can see that can happen when it applies to a single race or culture, but your point is irrelevant when it comes to the original point I made which was in reference to Islam, which can encompass any number of races and cultures.
> 
> So are you really saying that if I said "Islam is a silly religion", I would automatically be racially villifying every race who happened to have Muslims as members of that race and I should therefore come under the auspices of the Racial Discrimination Act ?




Agree with you Rumpole. 

Calling out someone for being a particular religion is not racism, its an assault on a mental condition IMO.

 It's like me calling you out as an ALP supporter as if you should take offense or be defensive (well ok you should be ashamed of yourself after all the coaching I have provided from here in the neutral zone), but nonetheless politics, sex and religion are not traditionally spoken about in polite company, so therefore its should be manhandled and  spoken about openly in impolite company like ours..... n'est pas?

How far up the ladder does racism stop? If Martians invaded would we expect them to have a constitution that says that the human species should not be vilified?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Time said:
			
		

> It's like me calling you out as an ALP supporter as if you should take offense or be defensive (well ok you should be ashamed of yourself after all the coaching I have provided from here in the neutral zone)






Not defensive or offended at all old boy, I am a Labor supporter (Federally) at this point in time because the Abbott government has stuffed so many things up. Just as Labor probably deserved to be thrown out, so do the LNP for their incompetence. 

I acknowledge that former Liberal governments, State and Federal did a good job up to a point as are some State Liberal governments.

How's that for neutrality ?


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

Just incase we thought free speech was the sole domain of the French, lets consider the Jewish news rag,  "The Announcer" and it's coverage of the Hebdo march:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultr...ale-world-leaders-out-of-charlie-hebdo-march/


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not defensive or offended at all old boy, I am a Labor supporter (Federally) at this point in time because the Abbott government has stuffed so many things up. Just as Labor probably deserved to be thrown out, so do the LNP for their incompetence.
> 
> I acknowledge that former Liberal governments, State and Federal did a good job up to a point as are some State Liberal governments.
> 
> How's that for neutrality ?




Jebus Crypes,  Rumpole I wouldn't have posted what I did If I had known you'd react like that !!!! My apologies


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

Tink said:


> We grew up with respect for all, no matter who they were, and same goes for this generation, our children.
> I agree with you, Calliope, there was no swearing in our home, and I still dislike it.




"When people talk about political correctness, the only element of any value is good manners".
Paul Johnson

Tink, i may be old fashoned, but I think the most important attribute we can pass on to our children is good manners,  and i have a feeling that VC would agree with this.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Jebus Crypes,  Rumpole I wouldn't have posted what I did If I had known you'd react like that !!!! My apologies




Your freedom of speech is respected, your use of gratuitous insults will be avenged.


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)




----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So are you really saying that if I said "Islam is a silly religion", I would automatically be racially villifying every race who happened to have Muslims as members of that race and I should therefore come under the auspices of the Racial Discrimination Act ?




If all you said was that "Islam is a silly religion" then no, thats not racially vilifying.

But saying something like, "Islam is a silly religion, therefore We shouldn't let Arabs into Australia" is different

I have a friend who is Turkish, he is actually an atheist, However A few years back A bogan screamed from a car "go home you F'n Muslim C", now in that situation, trying to hide behind "Muslim is not a race" doesn't fly, because the judgement is clearly racial.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have a friend who is Turkish, he is actually an atheist, However A few years back A bogan screamed from a car "go home you F'n Muslim C", now in that situation, trying to hide behind "Muslim is not a race" doesn't fly, because the judgement is clearly racial.



You are saying this because the 'bogan' made an assumption about the religion involved?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have a friend who is Turkish, he is actually an atheist, However A few years back A bogan screamed from a car "go home you F'n Muslim C", now in that situation, trying to hide behind "Muslim is not a race" doesn't fly, because the judgement is clearly racial.




As stupid as the bogan's statement was I don't think it was racial. If the bogan knew your friend was atheist and said "go home you Turkish ****", that would be racial. 

The bogan was attacking an ideology not your friends race.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Julia said:


> You are saying this because the 'bogan' made an assumption about the religion involved?




I think the bogan is probably either racist or xenophobic, or both, It would be the wrong thing to do even if my friend happened to be Muslim, as it happens though he isn't.

I using it as an example of where someone is referencing a religion, but where the motivation is more likely to be tied to xenophobia and racism.

Do you not agree that there is a group out there who protest against Mosques etc, where deep down the real problem they have are not theological, but more of a hatred for multiculturalism or a hatred of things that are not Anglo Australian.  

I am all for speaking out against religion, and I am a patriotic Australian, but I am against xenophobia and racism.

I will fight for Australia, but when patriotism turns to racism and xenophobia such as the Cronulla riots or my mate being told to go home because he looks middle eastern, it sickens me.

In the same breath, I dislike religion, for all the reasons I have mentioned on the other thread, I think religion disserves to be shown for what it is, a bunch of disgusting lies. However in the debate against religion, there are some who attack Islam for the wrong reasons, I am against that, and It's not helpful to the cause.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As stupid as the bogan's statement was I don't think it was racial. If the bogan knew your friend was atheist and said "go home you Turkish ****", that would be racial.
> 
> The bogan was attacking an ideology not your friends race.




So if my friend was Indian, and the bogan said "go home curry muncher", is that a racial attack or an honest attack against the eating of spicy foods?

What about calling an islander a coconut?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So if my friend was Indian, and the bogan said "go home curry muncher", is that a racial attack or an honest attack against the eating of spicy foods?
> 
> What about calling an islander a coconut?




A very tenuous comparison between "curry muncher" and Muslim.

You really haven't got what I said before, "curry muncher" or "coconut" refers to a single race or culture, Muslim refers to an ideology that can embrace any race or culture (and certainly wants to). People can choose their ideology but not their race. 

While "go home you Muslim ****" may be bigoted, it is not an attack on a race and therefore does not qualify under the Racial Discrimination Act.

And furthermore "curry muncher" or coconut" is a made up expression that may be perceived as derogatory in some circumstances. Calling someone a Muslim is a simple statement of fact. The bogan you cited simply assumed that your friend was Muslim. He made a mistake. It's not an act of racial discrimination.

If you want religion included under the Racial Discrimination Act and thereby to subject people (like yourself) to punishment for villifying religion, then please say so.


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So if my friend was Indian, and the bogan said "go home curry muncher", is that a racial attack or an honest attack against the eating of spicy foods?
> 
> What about calling an islander a coconut?




All it would indicate is that the "bogan" has bad manners. You are trying to read too much into these things. When I went to school I had a friend named Murphy. We used to call him Spud. He wore the appellation as a badge of honour.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> While "go home you Muslim ****" may be bigoted, *it is not an attack on a race and therefore does not qualify under the Racial Discrimination *Act.
> 
> .





Why is it that you think my friend was singled out for the verbal attack?



> And furthermore "curry muncher" or coconut" is a made up expression that may be perceived as derogatory in some circumstances. Calling someone a Muslim is a simple statement of fact. The bogan you cited simply assumed that your friend was Muslim. He made a mistake. It's not an act of racial discrimination.




I guess you can say whether some one eats curry or not is just a statement of fact. the bogan cited simply assumed my friend ate curry. he made a mistake. It's not an act of racial discrimination.



> If you want religion included under the Racial Discrimination Act and thereby to subject people (like yourself) to punishment for villifying religion, then please say so




I am against discrimination based on religion also, as I have said I believe in religious freedom.

But a rational conversation about religious doctrines is different to xenophobia.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> All it would indicate is that the "bogan" has bad manners. You are trying to read too much into these things. When I went to school I had a friend named Murphy. We used to call him Spud. He wore the appellation as a badge of honour.




That's called a nickname, that's a very different thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

> Why is it that you think my friend was singled out for the verbal attack?




Because bogans are stupid and don't stop to enquire what religion people are.

As I said if he told your friend to go home after he knew your friend was an atheist, that would be a racial attack.

Anyway, this discussion is getting rather boring. I would rather people didn't make stupid assumptions about others like bogans do, but they do. Are you going to throw them in gaol for that ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

From the 6minute mark on this video there is an interesting discussion on the fuzzy lines of racism in regards islamaphobia. 

Keep in mind these are atheists taking who hate religion, but can see the racism sometimes involved in anti Muslim speech


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Because bogans are stupid and don't stop to enquire what religion people are.




I wonder how many white people he had abused, and told to go home. Your justifications are pretty un convincing.

I find it hard to believe you don't think some people attack religion because of xenophobia


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

Race is a social construct. There are many more factors to a race than religious servitude. If you travel around UAE you would see there is a definite divide between the Paki Muslims and the Arab Muslims; they themselves see each other as different races.


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's called a nickname, that's a very different thing.




Yes it was only by chance we didn't call him Mick

"mick noun
an insulting word for an Irish person"

Here's a handy list for those on the lookout for offensive terms. It is good to know that i can take offence if someone calls me "whitey".

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/...-people-according-to-nationality-or-ethnicity


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I find it hard to believe you don't think some people attack religion because of xenophobia




Like some religions attack other people because of xenophobia ?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Race is a social construct. There are many more factors to a race than religious servitude. If you travel around UAE you would see there is a definite divide between the Paki Muslims and the Arab Muslims; they themselves see each other as different races.




Yes, and as I pointed out before the hutu and tutsi in Rwanda.

Very little genetic differences , no religious differences, yet they killed each other en masse. 

They saw themselves as different races too.

We all have xenophobia in us, its a feature of the human race not any particular sub-race.


----------



## pixel (14 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Yes it was only by chance we didn't call him Mick
> 
> "mick noun
> an insulting word for an Irish person"
> ...




what a load of croc!
I've got lots of friends named Mick, some may be Irish, others are definitely not.
Were their parents racist when they christened them? Or am I when I talk to them by name?

In a sports league, we had two Mick Murphy's. To distinguish father from son, the old man was Spud.

Some people are grown up about such things. Most of the time, it's outsiders that concoct such links, looking for possible interpretations that COULD be taken in a negative way. And in their eagerness to do some perceived good, they persuade a minority's minority to claim being offended.
Seems they've got too much spare time on their hands. Get a job and get real!


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Like some religions attack other people because of xenophobia ?




Offcourse, and we should recognise it and resist it.


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

pixel said:


> what a load of croc!




Are you taking the mickey out of the Macmillan Dictionary?


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So if my friend was Indian, and the bogan said "go home curry muncher", is that a racial attack or an honest attack against the eating of spicy foods?
> 
> What about calling an islander a coconut?




Meanwhile muslims call us non-muslims 'kaffir' and they do so with impunity.
Long live double standards and hypocrisy.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As stupid as the bogan's statement was I don't think it was racial. If the bogan knew your friend was atheist and said "go home you Turkish ****", that would be racial.
> 
> The bogan was attacking an ideology not your friends race.






Value Collector said:


> I think the bogan is probably either racist or xenophobic, or both, It would be the wrong thing to do even if my friend happened to be Muslim, as it happens though he isn't.
> 
> I using it as an example of where someone is referencing a religion, but where the motivation is more likely to be tied to xenophobia and racism.



I agree with Rumpole that you're making an assumption here.  If we consider why there is this increasing bad feeling toward Muslims, isn't it because in the terrorist attacks the assailants have clearly referenced their religion?   I don't see why you would instead assume that it's their skin colour which, as Rumpole has pointed out, varies across the many disciples of the religion.



> Do you not agree that there is a group out there who protest against Mosques etc, where deep down the real problem they have are not theological, but more of a hatred for multiculturalism or a hatred of things that are not Anglo Australian.



Perhaps a small proportion, but my guess is that it's more a reaction of anger and fear in response to the behaviour which is stated to be on behalf of their prophet.

I'm a bit tired of the label 'racist' being plastered on anyone who is simply objecting to bad behaviour, or actions which interfere with the capacity of others to live a peaceful life.
Terror is supposed to - and does - inspire fear and anxiety.   No matter who does it.  Might be hard right extremists.  So happens currently it seems to be emanating from Muslims.  So hardly surprising that the consequent anger and fear will be directed toward anyone perceived to be 'on that side'.



> I am all for speaking out against religion, and I am a patriotic Australian, but I am against xenophobia and racism.



Might be good to just be sure that you're not seeing racism where it is actually something else, often nothing more complicated than ignorance and general life dissatisfaction finding an outlet in stupid rudeness.



pixel said:


> what a load of croc!
> I've got lots of friends named Mick, some may be Irish, others are definitely not.
> Were their parents racist when they christened them? Or am I when I talk to them by name?
> 
> ...



Agree.  We have enough real triggers for social unrest:  let's not go looking for victimisation and discrimination.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

> Perhaps a small proportion, but my guess is that it's more a reaction of anger and fear in response to the behaviour which is stated to be on behalf of their prophet.




Nailed it. Muslims have been living in this country a long time, but it seems that the anti-Muslim feelings have only surfaced when we had radical clerics calling for jihad against the West and the terrorist attacks started.

Now, people can make valid claims about Western policy in the Middle East creating power vacuums for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism etc, but when wars are bought to our front door there is likely to be ill feeling towards those perceived to be "on the other side" (as Julia said). Anti Muslim feeling is more about fear of fundamentalism and attack than it is about racism.

Japanese were the enemy in WWII and they were rounded up and interned, whether they were a real threat or not. Same with Germans in Britain.

 I'm not saying the same should happen now. I'm sure there are moderate Muslims (probably most of them) that just want a quiet life, but in their midst are those who want the spread of their religion into Western society and are prepared to achieve it by force.

 It's the job of the moderates to de-radicalise their religion and help us fight terrorism. If they don't then our suspicion of them and antagonism towards them will increase, maybe justifiably.


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Nailed it. Muslims have been living in this country a long time, but it seems that the anti-Muslim feelings have only surfaced when we had radical clerics calling for jihad against the West and the terrorist attacks started.
> 
> .




It probably surfaced with the growth of the internet. I would hazard a guess there is more hatred amongst peer groups on twitter, facebook and discussion boards than there is for Islamics. Who knows how many of those shootings in the USA and elsewhere aren't because of internet rage.

In the nineties, people would be so inflamed by trolls they would threaten to "come around" and perform some kind of brutality on those who teased and taunted. Chances are the same unfulfilled vengeance is fueling naÃ¯ve minds into joining action groups?


----------



## overhang (14 January 2015)

Julia said:


> I'm a bit tired of the label 'racist' being plastered on anyone who is simply objecting to bad behaviour, or actions which interfere with the capacity of others to live a peaceful life.
> Terror is supposed to - and does - inspire fear and anxiety.   No matter who does it.  Might be hard right extremists.  So happens currently it seems to be emanating from Muslims.  So hardly surprising that the consequent anger and fear will be directed toward anyone perceived to be 'on that side'.




Yes I agree it's frustrating discussing this topic as you are either labeled as racist/xenophobic or political correct/Muslim apologist.  It's the same with the climate change debate, you're either labeled a denier or a warmest/alarmist.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's the job of the moderates to de-radicalise their religion and help us fight terrorism.




This is impossible and it is naÃ¯ve to think otherwise because as you further opine:



SirRumpole said:


> ……  in their midst are those who want the spread of their religion into Western society and are prepared to achieve it by force.




If you would rather not take notice of what I am saying then perhaps the words of *Ayatollah Khomeini *might be of more interest:

_“Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. *Those who say this are witless*”_

I think there a many contributing to this forum discussion who know nothing of Islam.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

> If you would rather not take notice of what I am saying then perhaps the words of Ayatollah Khomeini might be of more interest:
> 
> “Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless”
> 
> I think there a many contributing to this forum discussion who know nothing of Islam.




And why should we (or Muslims) believe the late Ayatollah Khomeni more than any other Muslim cleric ? He was an extremist with his own country to enslave. There is no overriding interpretation of the Koran in the world, it's what individual Muslim clerics want to believe and teach. Some take and extremist view , others a moderate view.

Practically speaking, where is the Islamic jihadist's power base ? The superpowers all hate them. The Saudis probably support them but they don't want to get the West offside. They are mainly running on captured weapons and wealth and if their ammunition supply can be dried up they are dead ducks.

They are a minority in most Western countries and although they can do some damage, their chances of overall victory are minimal. If they do take over any substantial cities then they have to run those cities and by doing so they make themselves targets. They have to keep hiding because if they come into the open the drones will get them.

Even if they do want world domination, their chances of getting it are not good with the weapons lined up against them.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

Julia said:


> I'm a bit tired of the label 'racist' being plastered on anyone who is simply objecting to bad behaviour, or actions which interfere with the capacity of others to live a peaceful life.
> Terror is supposed to - and does - inspire fear and anxiety.   No matter who does it.  Might be hard right extremists.  So happens currently it seems to be emanating from Muslims.  So hardly surprising that the consequent anger and fear will be directed toward anyone perceived to be 'on that side'




What bothers me more is that we spend so much time on introspection and criticising each other because we are doing exactly what the Jihadists want us to do.

It is one of the iron-clad rules of Jihad that muslims must always play the victim even when they are responsible for initiating conflict. The objective is to make non-muslims (the kaffirs) think that the conflict is their own fault. Once kaffirs have accepted the blame they will turn their criticism towards each other. 

And that is exactly what is happening in this forum. We don’t fully discuss the behavior of muslims towards us kaffirs because we are too constrained by political correctness and are bound up criticizing ourselves. At the same time we allow aspects of our freedom of speech to be subtly eroded which also plays right into the hands of the Jihadists. 
*There is no greater enemy of Islam than freedom of speech.*


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no overriding interpretation of the Koran in the world, it's what individual Muslim clerics want to believe and teach. Some take and extremist view , others a moderate view.




Of course, because The Koran (which actually makes up only about 18% of Islamic doctrine and rather less if the mountain of repetition it contains was taken out)  teaches two behaviours – one peaceful and the other violent according to circumstances and in the same manner in which Mohammed behaved , viz
“When you are not in a position of power, be quiet and do not draw attention to yourself. Use the time to build up strength and numbers until you become powerful enough to begin Jihad.“


----------



## bellenuit (14 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> *There is no greater enemy of Islam than freedom of speech.*




+1

*Who is Raif Badawi?*

https://scarcesense.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/who-is-raif-badawi/


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Of course, because The Koran (which actually makes up only about 18% of Islamic doctrine and rather less if the mountain of repetition it contains was taken out)  teaches two behaviours – one peaceful and the other violent according to circumstances and in the same manner in which Mohammed behaved , viz
> “When you are not in a position of power, be quiet and do not draw attention to yourself. Use the time to build up strength and numbers until you become powerful enough to begin Jihad.“




In that case, they have now drawn attention to themselves, but my previous remarks about their chances of success still apply.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, they have now drawn attention to themselves, but my previous remarks about their chances of success still apply.




I wish I could make myself agree with you.


----------



## Bintang (14 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> +1
> 
> *Who is Raif Badawi?*
> 
> https://scarcesense.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/who-is-raif-badawi/




Once again.... Q.E.D.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

If Abbott wants to restore any credibility this is one broken promise he should honour.


*Now is the time to say: *



> ‘‘We made a mistake last year when we gave up on getting rid of section 18C. The Coalition is the party that values free speech, not Labor or the Greens.
> 
> “And the value of a strong commitment in favour of free speech is that it lets malcontents know that if they want to live in a free, democratic Western society they will just have to learn to live with occasionally being offended. No one gets to play the self-perceived victim. If you think you’re on the right side of an argument, say why. Don’t try to silence others who disagree.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/do-the-right-thing-on-free-speech/story-e6frg6n6-1227185063448


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

> At the next election voters can make their choice knowing that the Coalition is the free speech party.’’




Strange, I thought the Coalition believe that nothing is free.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

Yes. We all know that freedom of speech comes at a price. The price is to devepop cojones.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Yes. We all know that freedom of speech comes at a price. The price is to devepop cojones.




The price is to be able to back up your arguments with facts, not just bigotry.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

Naturally I agree. Let's have a few of yours, or even opinions, on the aborted repeal of 18C.


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2015)

Pig is off the menu for writers:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/t...as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Pig is off the menu for writers:
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/t...as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html




So that's why they were going to get rid of Peppa Pig


----------



## pixel (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Pig is off the menu for writers:
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/t...as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html




That's got to be an Urban Myth, a _Porker Par Excellence_.
If OUP argue that certain words or concepts diminish their ability to sell books into 150 countries, they'd have to block more topics than just pork and pigs. How about words like "bikini", "gay", or "pill" in books destined for the Vatican. "Goldilocks" would have to be forbidden in just about every Muslim country, lest the thought of a woman's hair incite limitless lust in laddies' loins. And aren't dogs also unclean animals in that particular superstition?

The mind boggles, and I sincerely hope that kind of nonsense stays well away from Australia's shores.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

pixel said:


> How about words like "bikini", "gay", or "pill" in books destined for the Vatican.




Do you think that these words could affect the microscopic sale of books in the Vatican? Maybe... but rubbishing and denigrating the Vatican and the Pope is probably a more  popular pastime than upsetting Muslims, and it would probably enhance the sales of the books elsewhere. Probably not in Islamic countries, where they are averse to gays. bikinis and the pill.


----------



## Bintang (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Pig is off the menu for writers:
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/t...as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html






pixel said:


> That's got to be an Urban Myth, a _Porker Par Excellence_.




You could be half-right pixel. The article begins by stating – _"in an apparent bid to avoid offending *Muslims* and *Jews*"._

I’m, fairly sure there is no risk of offense to Jews,  not when you can find the children’s book “Baxter the Pig Who Wanted to be Kosher” favourably reviewed by the Jewish Book Council





However, I have been searching for the Islamic version of this book without success, i.e. "Baxter, the Pig Who Wanted to Be Halal".


----------



## DB008 (16 January 2015)

Sky News - grow some balls.


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Sky News - grow some balls.




*Shame on Canada - they need to grow some balls as well*


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Shame on Canada - they need to grow some balls as well*





Section 18C still leaves the door open for similar charges here. I know that we have prejudiced judges here too, but I dont think any of them would be crazy enough to inpose jail time. Even Bolt didn't get jail time, but was convicted  because the judge didn't like his "tone"  I guess if he had used "tones" like Brazau used  he could still be in jail. Of course, the chattering class would love that, but it makes a mockery of freedom of expression.

*Mr Abbott, tear down this crazy law!*


----------



## pixel (18 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Shame on Canada - they need to grow some balls as well*





> He said "things like 'I don't like Muslims'."



Unless we know what else he said "like" and in what context, it's easy to jump on the band wagon and cry foul.

Hating all *people *for their religion is a stupid generalisation. It's akin to Hitler hating all Jews. Who would want that covered under "freedom of speech"?
Rejecting aspects of a particular religion, ideally also offering a rational explanation for having formed such an opinion, would be far more palatable. Many Muslims that I know, as well as Jews and Christians, are only too willing to accept criticism and agree that their respective "Holy Scripture" is in dire need of an update. 
Sadly though, these enlightened ones are rarely going public because they have also realised that religious belief is a rather persona "matter of the heart", as opposed to the more fundamental acolytes that feel the need to promote their brand and recruit members into their organisation. 

*It's the organisations, not the people, that I find appalling. *


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> *It's the organisations, not the people, that I find appalling. *




If the content of the video is correct and truthful in its entirety then it is the judge who gave this guy jail time who *I find appalling*.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Rejecting aspects of a particular religion, ideally also offering a rational explanation for having formed such an opinion, would be far more palatable. Many Muslims that I know, as well as Jews and Christians, are only too willing to accept criticism and agree that their respective "Holy Scripture" is in dire need of an update.
> Sadly though, these enlightened ones are rarely going public because they have also realised that religious belief is a rather persona "matter of the heart", as opposed to the more fundamental acolytes that feel the need to promote their brand and recruit members into their organisation.




Interesting. These many Muslims who confide in you that they want to update their "holy scripture" are playing a dangerous game. Any Muslim who thinks they can update, rewrite or revise the quran ("the word of god") would be considered an apostate.



> Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning on 22 December 609 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death. Muslims regard the Quran as the most important miracle of Muhammad, a proof of his prophethood, and the culmination of a series of divine messages that started with the messages revealed to Adam and ended with Muhammad. *They consider the Quran to be the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption*.



wiki


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Interesting. These many Muslims who confide in you that they want to update their "holy scripture" are playing a dangerous game. Any Muslim who thinks they can update, rewrite or revise the quran ("the word of god") would be considered an apostate.
> 
> wiki




It's only dangerous for them if they live in a muslim country. But in other places like Australia they are so perfectly protected by our 'freedom of speech' that they should  be able to modify their Holy Scripture to their heart's content.


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Rejecting aspects of a particular religion, ideally also offering a rational explanation for having formed such an opinion, would be far more palatable. Many Muslims that I know, as well as Jews and Christians, are only too willing to accept criticism and agree that their respective "Holy Scripture" is in dire need of an update.




*This sounds a bit like what the Ahmadiyyan Muslims have tried to do :*

_Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century. It originated with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908). Ahmadiyya adherents believe that Ahmad appeared in the likeness of Jesus, to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace. They believe that upon divine guidance he divested Islam of fanatical and innovative beliefs and practices by championing what is in their view, Islam’s true and essential teachings as practised by Muhammad and the early Islamic community.[8] Thus, Ahmadis view themselves as leading the revival and peaceful propagation of Islam._ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

*It sounds like they are peaceful and moderate muslims so let’s examine how they are treated in Indonesia:*

In 2005, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) re-issued their fatwa (edict) declaring Ahmadiyah a deviant sect. 

Ahmadiyah members have been labeled as deviant (sesat), apostates (murtad), infidels (kafir), crazy, and labeled Mirza Ghoelam Ahmad a false prophet. 

80percent of Muhammadiyah leaders and 67 percent of NU leaders say that no members of Ahmadiyah should be allowed to build a house of worship in Jakarta; 88 percent of Muhammadiyah leaders and 82 percent of NU leaders say that no members of Ahmadiyah should be permitted to hold public office, build houses of worship or teach Islamic studies in public schools

Muhammadiyah and NU are widely seen as the backbone of Indonesia’s culture of tolerance. Yet, they have not protected members of Ahmadiyah

Hard-line Islamists shuttered an Ahmadiyah mosque after reportedly threatening to burn it down latest example of religious intolerance to plague West Java

Ahmadiyah bans: Legal justification for intolerance?

*But perhaps there is a glimmer of hope:*

For first time, displaced  Ahmadiyah receive aid from government


----------



## pixel (18 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Interesting. These many Muslims who confide in you that they want to update their "holy scripture" are playing a dangerous game. Any Muslim who thinks they can update, rewrite or revise the quran ("the word of god") would be considered an apostate.
> 
> wiki




Maybe the difference is that I can engage with people to the point where we discuss ideas rather than ideologies. For me, it is more important how educated individuals think about doctrines, than to read the general summary in a wiki article. Neither wiki nor fundamental clerics would see the need to mention that modern-day Muslims and Jews alike are enjoying foods that were "forbidden" in ancient times when there was no refrigeration. I have also yet to see a Muslim leave a business meeting or seminar because it is time for one of the prescribed push-up sessions. And I've met only one person who really believed in the King James translation being literally correct because its writers assured the gullible that God confirmed they got it right whenever they were uncertain and asked his advice in prayer. 

Classic cases of circular reasoning: "The Qur'an is Allah's word because the guy that wrote it down said so." Or the more general "proof": If God didn't exist, where would all his words come from? No wonder so many sci-fi fans and Hollywood actors believe in L.Ron Hubbard's script.

It all benefits *the organisation* and a few power brokers in the background. If a few clever marketing and salesmen hadn't seen a lucrative business model that would turn donations into tax-free income for themselves in the hierarchy, Joseph Smith would have remained an unknown polygamist, Hubbard a B-grade sci-fi hack. And that, Bintang, is the reason why I detest the *organisations *and their fakery, but feel sorry for the victims that fall for it and get fleeced.

PS: Bintang, of course I'm talking about educated people *here in Australia,* not Indonesia or any other Islamiccountry. That's because this topic is about *freedom of speech in the West.*


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> PS: Bintang, of course I'm talking about educated people *here in Australia,* not Indonesia or any other Islamiccountry. That's because this topic is about *freedom of speech in the West.*




This topic 'freedom of speech in the west' should apply to everyone in the West - both non-muslims and muslims.

In this context it is therefore relevant to consider whether muslims in the west can actually avail themselves of freedom of speech within their own families and moslem communities.

Pixel, perhaps your muslim friends only avail themselves of the opportunity of freedom of speech when they talk to you.


----------



## DB008 (18 January 2015)

You can add Israel to the list as well




> *CNN’s Jim Clancy resigns after controversial Israel tweets*
> 
> Veteran anchor steps down after mocking pro-Israel tweeters on a thread discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
> Veteran CNN anchor Jim Clancy stepped down on Friday, one week after a series of Twitter posts in which he mocked pro-Israel tweeters on a thread discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
> ...


----------



## Bintang (18 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> You can add Israel to the list as well




DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't? Here is something a bit easier to understand.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't? Here is something a bit easier to understand.
> 
> View attachment 61193





Ever stop and think what it would mean if it's true what you, and your comics, are saying?

So let me try it for you.


You said Islam and Muslims are violent, dangerous and will not permit you or anyone else to criticise them or their religion or their prophet. 

Those that dare will be killed or physically harmed or verbally abused by Muslims.

If any of that is true, wouldn't we see all, ALL, Muslims... or at least MOST Muslims, or at least a fair percentage of Muslims, or at least a bunch of them going after you and all brave critics of Islam?

Have we ever seen that kind of violent and murderous mob behaviour from Muslims in retaliation to the "critics" and freedom of speech cartoonists? 

I haven't.


So with Charlie Hebdo, did a bunch of French Muslims plan to attack them also but got there late?

In short, if what you say is true of Islam and of Muslims - that it is violent and call for death on all critics etc. - then all Muslims would have attack and murder any and all critics and shock jocks, not just by a couple of terrorists trained and instructed by a declared and sworn enemy of the West.

---

So what's your definition of freedom of speech?

That you and others like minded have the right to mock people's faith and beliefs for pure sadism, and they in turn have no right to get upset? No right to raise their voice? 

How many Australians are Muslims? some 200, 000?  I'm pretty sure most of them are somewhat or very upset at their Prophet and their religion being insulted... have there been violence and mayhem on our streets from them?

Maybe they're planning to.. maybe they just get upset but got over it and ignore idiots and bigots like we all must now and then.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Maybe the difference is that I can engage with people to the point where we discuss ideas rather than ideologies. For me, it is more important how educated individuals think about doctrines, than to read the general summary in a wiki article.




Pixel, you and I being "educated individuals" know that the quran is just a crock. And of course your educated muslim friends who don't point their ar$es in the air five times a day probably know it is a crock. But I think they are having a lend of you. Anyone who expresses these thoughts and doubts about the quran to a kafir obviously cannot be a muslim. You can't be a muslim in name only without subscribing to all the bull$hit that goes with it. Maybe they have an ulterior motive.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> Anyone who expresses these thoughts and doubts about the quran to a kafir obviously cannot be a muslim. You can't be a muslim in name only without subscribing to all the bull$hit that goes with it.




I agree and therefore if they are not muslims they also cannot be ‘moderate muslims' because in fact there is no such thing. 

_If so-called ‘moderate’ moslems in the West ‘hold back’ and fail to exercise freedom of speech within their own muslim communities to express views which conflict with Islamic doctrine and teaching then they are not moderating anything and should not be called  ‘moderate’.  _

They cannot be *muslim* and *moderate* at the same time. It’s a bit like you cannot be *early* and *late* at the same time.  For example,  if the early worm ‘held back’ and stayed in bed waiting for the early bird to finish breakfast then the adjective ‘early’ is not applicable to either the worm or the bird.

Teacher Worm:  _Why are you late?_
Pupil Worm:  _Sorry teacher, I was waiting for the bird to finish breakfast_

Teacher Bird:  _Why are you late?_
Pupil Bird: _ Sorry teacher, I was finishing my breakfast._


----------



## pixel (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't?




I do understand it, Bintang;
I take it to mean that granting someone freedom of speech doesn't bestow on them an ability to speak intelligently. Just as giving someone a drivers license doesn't make them careful and considerate drivers. I guess that's also the gist of Brandis' saying you can't legislate against bigotry. If we grant freedom of speech, we have to be prepared to hear something stupid and not be offended.

btw, the complaint against the use of the word 'cripple' is outright stupid and should be covered under the topic "Political correctness gone mad".


----------



## pixel (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> I agree and therefore if they are not muslims they also cannot be ‘moderate muslims' because in fact there is no such thing.
> 
> _If so-called ‘moderate’ moslems in the West ‘hold back’ and fail to exercise freedom of speech within their own muslim communities to express views which conflict with Islamic doctrine and teaching then they are not moderating anything and should not be called  ‘moderate’.  _
> 
> ...




Earlier today, I exposed as circular reasoning the "proof" for God's existence or the Qur'an being Allah's word. Your and Calli's redefinition of Muslim appears to me as following a similar fallacy. The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Earlier today, I exposed as circular reasoning the "proof" for God's existence or the Qur'an being Allah's word. Your and Calli's redefinition of Muslim appears to me as following a similar fallacy. The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."




It is not circular reasoning at all. It is simply that muslim and moderate muslim are mutually exclusive and it is the Qu'uran that has made it this way.

PS: re-read my post about the Ahmadiyyan moslems. They are considered to be apostates by most Indonesian moslems. Who then is being moderate?


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2015)

pixel said:


> . The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."




It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of  those who do not agree with them.  

None of the above nonsense bears any relationship to anything I have said...and you know it. It is a deliberate distortion.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

pixel said:


> The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."






Calliope said:


> It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of  those who do not agree with them.
> 
> None of the above nonsense bears any relationship to anything I have said...and you know it. It is a deliberate distortion.




Perhaps pixel, you would be pleased to know that Geert Wilder’s frequently states that there are many moderate muslims:

_"Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – of course, there are many moderate Muslims. I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam. There is only one Islam – the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord. But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority. They are not."_

However, I think he is being too congenial with his language and I disagree with him. Why? Because if moderate Islam does not exist neither do moderate muslims exist. In other words under Islam there can only be muslims, *ex*-muslims (apostates) and those who have never been muslims (kafirs).


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Perhaps pixel, you would be pleased to know that Geert Wilder’s frequently states that there are many moderate muslims:
> 
> _"Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – of course, there are many moderate Muslims. I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam. There is only one Islam – the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord. But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority. They are not."_
> 
> However, I think he is being too congenial with his language and I disagree with him. Why? Because if moderate Islam does not exist neither do moderate muslims exist. In other words under Islam there can only be muslims, *ex*-muslims (apostates) and those who have never been muslims (kafirs).




Is there a moderate Christianity? Moderate Judaism? Moderate any-religion?

How many conquerors and founder of states can you name that were peaceful? That were not warmongering?

George Washington was called "he who burn villages" or something like that by the Native Americans.
Caesar? Napoleon? etc. etc.


A positive, very optimistic, look at your point of view is that you dislike Islam (and Muslims) because you dislike violence, dislike bigotry, war and terrorism, oppression - and you don't like Islam because you think it preaches all these stuff. Fair enough, very admirable qualities... but you and a couple of others really need to know history, know politics, and maybe get to know a few Muslims.

To see an entire religion, some 1.6 billion people, as bad and evil.. .that's the kind of thinking that will lead you agree to policies that does away with them as politicians and you see fit. You know, they bad and evil... so go and clean up.... Everytime that happen, lots of innocent people get blown up or gassed, or locked up, tortured without charge.

So in hating Islam thinking it's all bad and evil and you're against bad and evil... what are you really doing? Doing the same loathsome thing you think shouldn't be done.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> A positive, very optimistic, look at your point of view is that you dislike Islam (and Muslims).
> 
> what are you really doing? Doing the same loathsome thing you think shouldn't be done.




Iuutzu, Congratulations! Within your diatribe against me you managed to get one thing correct. Yes, I hate Islam.  But I do not hate muslims and in fact I have many muslim friends. 

I try very hard myself to avoid personally attacking the integrity of people on this forum. Sometimes I am sarcastic and sometimes I try to be humorous. If I slip up and do something worse than that I will apologise but I will not apologise for having opinions with which someone else disagrees.

I am happy to maintain discussion with you for as long as you can remain civil but if you direct another personal attack at me I will follow the lead of some others on this forum and put you on ignore.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Yes, I hate Islam.  But I do not hate muslims




Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......


----------



## pixel (19 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......
> 
> View attachment 61197




Why is Ricky grinning from ear to ear?
I reckon it is because he knows his analogy won't quite fit:

You can choose your religion, even if your parents have given you a particular one in your genes. Once old enough, and especially with the benefit of a Western-style education, you should be able to step from Stone Age beliefs into the Here and Now. But no matter how well educated you are, you'll find it impossible to beat cancer with rational thought.

That doesn't mean the "hatred" argument isn't valid: Hating a person for an affliction visited upon them is stupid, especially if they caught it involuntarily. Feeling pity for the innocent victim would be more appropriate. 

On the positive side though, Ricky's pointed comment that _"even the dumbest should understand"_ can be appreciated as a kind of humorous caricature, not unlike a Charlie Hebdo cartoon.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Iuutzu, Congratulations! Within your diatribe against me you managed to get one thing correct. Yes, I hate Islam.  But I do not hate muslims and in fact I have many muslim friends.
> 
> I try very hard myself to avoid personally attacking the integrity of people on this forum. Sometimes I am sarcastic and sometimes I try to be humorous. If I slip up and do something worse than that I will apologise but I will not apologise for having opinions with which someone else disagrees.
> 
> I am happy to maintain discussion with you for as long as you can remain civil but if you direct another personal attack at me I will follow the lead of some others on this forum and put you on ignore.





A lot of people, myself included, does not like any religion. Do you see us talking about Muslims or Islam or any religion or group of people the way you do Muslims and Islam?

You got Muslim friends and are only against Islam, not its followers? Stop fooling yourself.

A good Muslim is not really a Muslim right?

What else?

Yea, Christianity and Judaism have nasty bits in it but its followers don't take that seriously - only Muslims take the evil bits in their Koran seriously because if they don't they'd be killed, and if they're not killed they'd just do it anyway because that's Islam for ya.


What's the Pope's view on contraception again? The current one. He's OK with it?
How about gay marriage?
How about stem cell research?

How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the Church, through its various subsidiaries around the world, have? Are those being use to feed the poor and shelter the homeless among their own flocks?

----

Yes, Islam, like cancer, is bad. If only Muslims (the Arabs) have that cancer removed they'd be a healthy and happy and peaceful person and we won't have to be in the Middle East spreading democracy.

So we in the West, the good non-Islamic, the Christian ones... Our religion have moderated our values and be more scientific, more civilised, more good and less evil, less violent, less or non-existent warmongering preaching.... and we do not fight wars at all?

I guess all we do with our jets and drones, our destroyers and submarines... are just creating craters in deserts... making it bloom.


Howard Zinn was right... without knowing history a person is like a child born yesterday. And like all children, are led and used at the whim of their dear leaders with no more effort than a few slogans.

Yes mein Fuhrer, those dirty Jews and gypsies and disabled must be cleanse from our myst so that you can build a 1000 year third Reich.

Yes mein Fuhrer, those German troops of ours returning from the Eastern front with no eyelids, no nose, no limbs from frostbites... they are just weaklings who cannot stand the gentle cold.

Yes Team Captain, we must fight them over there so they won't have the chance to fight us over here.


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it *in terms even the dumbest should understand*.......
> 
> View attachment 61197




When I read this post bellenuit, I thought that perhaps you were underestimating the capacity of those with opposing views, for engaging in fallacious reasoning and argument.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> When I read this post bellenuit, I thought that perhaps you were underestimating the capacity of those with opposing views, for engaging in fallacious reasoning and argument.




No one is "suggesting" you did anything. It's been clearly stated, written down, in this forum by you and company.

How do you call it reasoning when you said Muslims and Islam is this and that, all of them... and somehow not all, not even most, of them do what you say they'll do. And yet you still believe it.

Anyway...


----------



## Hodgie (19 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Why is Ricky grinning from ear to ear?
> I reckon it is because he knows his analogy won't quite fit:
> 
> You can choose your religion, even if your parents have given you a particular one in your genes. Once old enough, and especially with the benefit of a Western-style education, you should be able to step from Stone Age beliefs into the Here and Now. But no matter how well educated you are, you'll find it impossible to beat cancer with rational thought.
> ...





I actually don't think that the picture has anything to do with that quote. I'm pretty sure someone has just grabbed the quote from Ricky's twitter feed and added the picture in. Also, he is primarily a comedian, he is grinning all the time.

I agree with the quote in its literal sense, non-specific to Muslims but religion in general. I don't think its particularly relevant that no one chooses to have cancer but (arguably) people choose to hold religious beliefs. 

I personally dislike (hate might be too strong a word for me to use here) both religion and cancer but I don't dislike anyone specifically because they are religious just the same as I would not dislike anyone for the fact that they have cancer.

We don't need to read any more into it than that, keep in mind that this was a tweet which limits him to 140 characters, it's not like he can go into great details on the differences between cancer and religion. He got his point across which is the purpose of the tweet in the first place. Its easy enough to choose cancer as a comparison because I don't think anyone will think the statement "I hate cancer" is offensive or insensitive.


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> No one is "suggesting" you did anything. It's been clearly stated, written down, in this forum by you and company.
> 
> How do you call it reasoning when you said Muslims and Islam is this and that, all of them... and somehow not all, not even most, of them do what you say they'll do. And yet you still believe it.
> 
> Anyway...




You are obviously trying to tell me something...but I haven't got a clue what it is.:dunno: While you persist in fallacious reasoning, your posts will continue to be nonsense.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> You are obviously trying to tell me something...but I haven't got a clue what it is.:dunno: While you persist in fallacious reasoning, your posts will continue to be nonsense.




Maybe if I agree with you, then mine and your nonsense will become sensible.



Anyway, life's too short for this.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......
> 
> View attachment 61197




Bellenuit, Thank you for the excellent clarification.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> You are obviously trying to tell me something...but I haven't got a clue what it is.:dunno: While you persist in fallacious reasoning, your posts will continue to be nonsense.






luutzu said:


> Maybe if I agree with you, then mine and your nonsense will become sensible.




This sounds a bit like Bill Shorten's classic statement, _"I don't know what the Prime Minister said but I agree with her"_. Iuutzu, I think you have the potential to become leader of the Labor Party.


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2015)

pixel said:


> Earlier today, I exposed as circular reasoning the "proof" for God's existence or the Qur'an being Allah's word. Your and Calli's redefinition of Muslim appears to me as following a similar fallacy. The essence of what you're saying is "*All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d.*"






Calliope said:


> It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of  those who do not agree with them.
> 
> None of the above nonsense bears any relationship to anything I have said...and you know it. It is a deliberate distortion.




Where is the distortion?

Pixel nailed your position on “muslims” to a T, and you don't like it?


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Where is the distortion?
> 
> Pixel nailed your position on “muslims” to a T, and you don't like it?




With selective reading of the posts on this subject I can see how this conclusion might be reached. But just because you and pixel think it is circular reasoning that does not make it so. It is a matter of mutually exclusive terms under Islamic doctrine.


----------



## Calliope (19 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Where is the distortion?
> 
> Pixel nailed your position on “muslims” to a T, and you don't like it?




As I said Mac; "It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of those who do not agree with them".

You are the worst offender. However keep it coming, you are my biggest fan, and you give me plenty of laughs.


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> With selective reading of the posts on this subject I can see how this conclusion might be reached. But just because you and pixel think it is circular reasoning that does not make it so. It is a matter of mutually exclusive terms under Islamic doctrine.




Where is the "selective reading"?

You said "*It is simply that muslim and moderate muslim are mutually exclusive *and it is the Qu'uran that has made it this way.

Therefore, you are concluding that a  true muslim can not be a moderate, therefore all muslims are radicals.


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> As I said Mac; "It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of those who do not agree with them".
> 
> You are the worst offender. However keep it coming, you are my biggest fan, *and you give me plenty of laughs*.




Yeah, I got you big time on that air con purchase.


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Where is the "selective reading"?
> 
> You said "*It is simply that muslim and moderate muslim are mutually exclusive *and it is the Qu'uran that has made it this way.
> 
> Therefore, you are concluding that a  true muslim can not be a moderate, therefore all muslims are radicals.




How about you read my post #282 about the Ahmadiyyan Muslims in Indonesia.

I selected this case because there seems to be some general acceptance that Indonesian muslims  represent the ‘moderate’ end of the spectrum.

The Ahmadiyyan muslims have rejected violent and fanatical beliefs and would have to be as moderate as you could get. But a huge majority of mainstream muslims in Indonesia (yes the ones who are supposed to be themselves the moderates) declared that the peaceful Ahmadiyyans are apostates. The end result is that this group of muslims in Indonesia has been persecuted for years and the Indonesian government has turned a blind eye. Many Ahmadiyyan muslim homes, businesses and mosques have been destroyed over the years and individuals have been subjected to violence and sometimes killed.  All because the so-called ‘moderate muslims’ object to the Ahmadiyyan muslims being genuinely moderate. 

So if genuinely moderate muslims can be regarded as apostates by mainstream muslims and the Kuran is used to justify this how can the mainstream muslims also be called moderate?

*This nails the argument to a ‘T’*


----------



## DB008 (19 January 2015)

Saw this...

Agree or disagree??


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Saw this...
> 
> Agree or disagree??




From a Western perspective I agree. From an Islamic perspective I would disagree.


----------



## DB008 (19 January 2015)

Just saw this on Reddit. I don't watch SouthPark, but this is so true at the moment!



> The end of the South Park episode 201 was censored. Here it is! It's message is all the more relevant today - [0:52] (youtube.com)


----------



## Bintang (19 January 2015)

DB008 said:


> Just saw this on Reddit. I don't watch SouthPark, but this is so true at the moment!




Especially the last statement, "The only true power is violence" and in the West we try to fight it with the power of political correctness and the gradual suppression of our freedom of speech". What a bunch of dummies we are.


----------



## Bintang (20 January 2015)

*Shame on the BBC*

I could not believe my ears last night while watching BBC World News Service.
They did a story on Germany’s anti-muslim PEGIDA movement and how its latest rally in Dresden was called off due to a threat of attack against its leaders. 

The BBC presenter then said that despite the cancellation of the Dresden rally the Danish PEGIDA movement were currently going ahead with their planned rally in Copenhagen.
Presenter: _ “We are going over to Copenhagen now to show you the scene there.
*Of course we are not bringing this to you live in case the protesters hold up something offensive.”*_ 

The scene that the BBC then showed was of an almost empty street with a few people holding candles. It could have been a few people walking home from carols by candle-light.

So I did some googling to try and find out what the scene really looked like.
If you are interested  you can see it here.
http://www.epa.eu/politics-photos/citizens-initiative-recall-photos/demonstration-of-danish-pegida-in-copenhagen-photos-51746746


----------



## Calliope (21 January 2015)

It's all about "blasphemy" right?  If only the decent people of the world could refrain from uttering words that Islamists consider "blasphemous" then we would have universal peace on earth and good will toward all men. It doesn't seem too much to ask does it?  President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande of France have already adopted this policy by sensibly refusing to associate terrorism with Islam.

I don't see why we lesser mortals can't sacrifice some freedom of speech for the common good. Section 18C already shows the way and it has the support of all Australians left of centre. We mustn't give in to the red-necks.

Did someone say"what about ISIS"?  Another simple solution. It only requires those opposing them to convert to Sunni...problem solved.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Especially the last statement, "The only true power is violence" and in the West we try to fight it with the power of political correctness and the gradual suppression of our freedom of speech". What a bunch of dummies we are.




You do know that our troops are fighting ISIS in Syria don't you ?


----------



## moXJO (23 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You do know that our troops are fighting ISIS in Syria don't you ?




Huh???
When did we go into Syria?


----------



## dutchie (24 January 2015)

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi said Muslims had a duty to respond to the magazine.

"We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and *we reject your freedom tomorrow*," he said.

(my bolds)

Lakemba, Australia yesterday.

Psst   Nothing to do with Islam


----------



## pixel (24 January 2015)

I very rarely agree with Tony Abbott, but on this subject, I am totally on his side:

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...y-abbott-sydney-lslamic-protesters-lighten-up

Can he stop dissent the same way he stopped the boats? 



> A spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir likened Abbott’s comments to being asked to “discard the sacredness of our values”.



What about *our* sacred values?


----------



## Bintang (24 January 2015)

pixel said:


> I very rarely agree with Tony Abbott, but on this subject, I am totally on his side:
> *Can he stop dissent the same way he stopped the boats?*




Well stopping the boats was a very good start because it means we have less muslims in our country than we would otherwise have. 

But for Tony Abbott to do more he along with all our other politicians need to start taking notice of what the chorus of ex-muslim (apostate) critics have to say. Here is Ali Sina’s opinion on the possibility of reforming Islam:

_[After studying the Qur’an] “I [have] accepted the conclusion that the Qur’an is not a book of God, but satanic verses, a hoax, and the product of a sick mind.
Further studies convinced him that, “the ills afflicting the Muslim world, are caused by Islam and that this religion is a serious threat to mankind”. 
He believes that “*reforming Islam is impossible*". 
But he also says that "Islam is like a brittle stone; you can’t mold it, but you can smash it. Islam is like a house of cards. sustained by lies; *all it takes to demolish it is to challenge those lies holding it together*. It is a tall building, erected on quicksand; once you expose its foundation, the sand will wash away and this mighty edifice will fall under its own weight. 
When asked whether Islam has a future, Sina’s response is: “*Yes! It belongs in the dustbin of history*.”_ (*Source:* Understanding Muhammad, by Ali Sinas)



pixel said:


> What about *our* sacred values?




Yes, especially our freedom of speech but also all the other freedoms we enjoy.

But how many people have stopped to consider what Islamic sacred values are? What are the values that muslims cherish?  What kind of noble threads bind them together?  I bet Tony Abbott doesn’t know the correct answers to those questions.


----------



## Bintang (25 January 2015)

*Freedom of Speech in Sweden -  Muslim Style*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-...r_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=g0sRmpvdIIk


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Freedom of Speech in Sweden -  Muslim Style*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-...r_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=g0sRmpvdIIk




I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.


----------



## Bintang (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.




Nobody was forcing theme to be there.
All they had to do was leave the room.
For those stupid enough to want to watch it - let them watch it on their own.
Very simple.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.




You have the right to be offended, But you don't have the right to react violently.

they should have just stood up and left.


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You have the right to be offended, But you don't have the right to react violently.
> 
> they should have just stood up and left.




Yeah but get a bunch of greeks or southern Italians in a room showing a film abusing naked garlic cloves and you would get the same reaction. 

I don't want to see homosexual males at it, nor do I want to see ugly women lesbians going at it ........ both situations are like picturing your grandad and grandma having sex .... yuck!!!!!! 

Tropic Thunder was the best intro in outing (and ultimately stopping) the spread of offensive advertising that was about at that time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwViH1DnK9Y


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> I don't want to see homosexual males at it, nor do I want to see ugly women lesbians going at it




Then don't watch it.

Just because something offends some one, does not make the thing immoral or mean it should be banned. 

Others may want to watch something, and the fact it offends you doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to watch it.

those Muslims should have just stood up and left.


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Then don't watch it.
> 
> .




yeah but if you are invited or otherwise to have a mature conflab about something that portends to be socially acceptable by even normal western social standards, discuss something prickly, to find that you have been tricked into a trap is going to get anyone's dander up.

The whole exercise was designed to anger and offend, with no mollifying offset. A true discussion would have presets and warnings, with an agenda that was clear to the participants.

Let me give you by way of explanation example:

When Independence Day the movie came out in 1996 I treated my wife and children (13 and 11) to share a viewing on father's day.  I'm no prude, but one thing I wanted for my kids was a solid, traditional I guess, grounding in knowing their mum and dad believed in basic decency role modelling (thus shooting aliens and rooting for the USA as the good guys who save the world). So when the Bond's (under new ownership) add comes on with women sticking tongues down each other's throats and near naked men cavorting with each other and I'm trapped in row of chairs (just like the Muslim and his kid in that clip we are talking about) I was stupified and angry; as were many other adults as it turned out with the theatre admitting I was not the only irate father on the day and the Bonds Ad had been pulled as a consequence .....my wife boycotted Bonds from then on and I refuse to buy their stuff to this day. 

Because the nearest things to the missing link writhe around semi naked in music videos clips and facebook is filled with schlock, base humour and depraved mischief doesn't make it right and because Islamists don't like the vulgarity and disrespect of the actions of the few doesn't mean I should take a binary view in place of an analogue of ideals. I should be afforded decency of knowing I would be offended before I am to be ridiculed via shock videos for my moral code, just like movies and television shows must show a rating that represents current (majority) social ratings.


----------



## Bintang (27 January 2015)

*Stirrings In Europe* 
- some continue to exercise their freedom of speech even if they have to do it from behind a wall of security protection:

Sunday, 25 January 2015 17:45
Today, a greeting from PVV party leader Geert Wilders was read out to more than 20,000 participants at the PEGIDA demonstration:

My dear friends in Dresden,
It really is fabulous what happened here in Dresden. Dresden shows how it's done. All Europe is looking at you. You are not alone. You're part of something big. In Germany, Holland, Europe. You fulfil the hopes of many. You are the voice of the people against the elite. You are the people!

In Germany, people have had enough of it.
In Holland, the people have had enough of it.
Across Europe, people have had enough of it.

Enough of the terror and hatred.
Enough of the attacks, enough of the bloodshed.
Enough of Islamization.
Enough of the political elites,
Who betray our Judeo-Christian identity and our traditions,
Who destroy the future of our children,
and who operate the sellout of our country and our civilization.
Across Europe, people are saying, "We are the people"! And we are fed up!

I support you all. Millions in Europe support you. I'm proud of you.
We want what you want: a free people, a free country, a civilized country, and no Islamization.
Let us fight for it together! No one can stop us.
Long live freedom.

Geert Wilders


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> yeah but if you are invited or otherwise to have a mature conflab about something that portends to be socially acceptable by even normal western social standards, discuss something prickly, to find that you have been tricked into a trap is going to get anyone's dander up.
> 
> The whole exercise was designed to anger and offend, with no mollifying offset. A true discussion would have presets and warnings, with an agenda that was clear to the participants.
> 
> ...




I note that you didn't mention you threating anyone with violence in response to the bond commercial.

you can walk out, you can boycott the company etc, but acting violently in response to something that is non violent is simply wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

> you can walk out, you can boycott the company etc, but acting violently in response to something that is non violent is simply wrong.




No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.

 We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.

So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?


----------



## Bintang (27 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.
> 
> We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.
> 
> So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?




Je suis not sure. Ask the French?


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.
> 
> We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.
> 
> So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?




It depends what it is that your protesting, some people think a woman walking down the street without a burqa is provocative, I think if a group of woman protested laws that force them to wear burqas by walking down the street without one then that would be a good thing, though others would consider in bad manners.

Some ideas need to be protested and laughed at, even at the risk of being provocative, and even if its only to demonstrate that we have the right to do things, regardless of what some one else's superstitious religion says.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It depends what it is that your protesting, some people think a woman walking down the street without a burqa is provocative, I think if a group of woman protested laws that force them to wear burqas by walking down the street without one then that would be a good thing, though others would consider in bad manners.
> 
> Some ideas need to be protested and laughed at, even at the risk of being provocative, and even if its only to demonstrate that we have the right to do things, regardless of what some one else's superstitious religion says.




I certainly agree that ideas should be challenged, but what about cartoons of religious figures in obscene poses etc ?

If we are going to have a debate about religion, then let's make it an intelligent one, we don't need gratuitous denigration imo.


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly agree that ideas should be challenged, but what about cartoons of religious figures in obscene poses etc ?
> 
> If we are going to have a debate about religion, then let's make it an intelligent one, we don't need gratuitous denigration imo.




Like this cartoon. Why didn't thousands of Catholics  pile onto the streets and protest?


----------



## Tink (28 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> ...........
> 
> Let me give you by way of explanation example:
> 
> ...




Good on you, Tisme, and your wife, for speaking up against the 'sexualisation of our children', we would have done the same, and still do.

Allow kids the childhood they deserve without being bombarded with highly sexualised, adult images


----------



## Tink (28 January 2015)

As I have said before, I am all for Freedom of Speech and the change to 18C.

The speech Labor and the Greens want to be free, is speech about things they agree with.

I don't think people should be taken to Court for expressing an opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

Tink said:


> I don't think people should be taken to Court for expressing an opinion.




So you would support the renouncment of all defamation laws ?


----------



## Tink (28 January 2015)

Yes, that is how it was before.

Society can work out right from wrong, I feel we have been silenced, as I have said before, with this PC, and these laws where you cannot say anything.

If we want a serious debate about issues in this country, we should be allowed to speak. 
Do you feel we can now?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Yes, that is how it was before.
> 
> Society can work out right from wrong, I feel we have been silenced, as I have said before, with this PC, and these laws where you cannot say anything.
> 
> ...




Considering some of the stuff that has been said on this forum, yes I believe that we can.


----------



## Tisme (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Considering some of the stuff that has been said on this forum, yes I believe that we can.




Back when the war2 was still visiting the poor sods in their dreams who served in it, I was employed in a workshop complex populated with them. They were from everywhere Europe and they had that old skool distrust and hate for their work mates; all except for the Brits who kept their friendly rivalry between themselves and above those from across the English Channel side. Oh there was the Italians who just always seemed friendly, happy, polite and so grateful to have a new place to call home (wonderful people the Italians, by and large).

Even back then  we were importing damaged people who had unresolved issues and generational hatreds.

It was rather a shocking thing for me to see the tensions and eruptions and the vulgar language only cemented my disdain for them and their primitive behaviours. None of them were Islamic as I recall, but supposed Christians, dispossessed of their birth rights.

It was the Australian tough nuts who had also seen and done things in the war they wouldn't talk about, who showed the way by letting it be known that if things continued, things would really get ugly and the protagonists better shake hands and act politely to each other or else.... no police, no specific legislation enacted, just peer group pressure to do the right thing, i.e.  "don't s4it the mob".


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Back when the war2 was still visiting the poor sods in their dreams who served in it, I was employed in a workshop complex populated with them. They were from everywhere Europe and they had that old skool distrust and hate for their work mates; all except for the Brits who kept their friendly rivalry between themselves and above those from across the English Channel side. Oh there was the Italians who just always seemed friendly, happy, polite and so grateful to have a new place to call home (wonderful people the Italians, by and large).
> 
> Even back then  we were importing damaged people who had unresolved issues and generational hatreds.
> 
> ...




Well put, but I wonder how many "tough nuts" we have today ?

Not much war to speak of for 70 years (ok, there was Vietnam and Korea but they were local squabbles involving relatively few Australians). 

I think we as a population have gone soft and don't really have a sense of importance of what our guys fought for in WWII, or a sense of resolve to get to grips with today's problems, extremism, drug running and organised crime gangs to name a few.

Do we need another war to regain our "independence" ? I hope not, but we all need some wakeup call to galvanise our psyche and restore our resolve.

Reintroduce conscription perhaps ? I don't like the idea of that particularly, but more organised community involvement in common issues wouldn't go astray.


----------



## Hodgie (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you would support the renouncment of all defamation laws ?




Where people start to mix their personal opinions and present them as facts for personal gain (or just pure revenge) is where these laws are required. The reason that most contracts and deeds of settlement will have confidentiality agreements.

Often the general public will not know enough of the facts so if these defamation laws did not exist and ones opinion was the prevailing word it could be taken as fact to many. Rumors and opinions can have devastating impacts on a person/business/economy if there is nothing to monitor what people can say.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly agree that ideas should be challenged, but what about cartoons of religious figures in obscene poses etc ?
> 
> .




I guess that's a way to show the religious groups who demand we respect their silly ideas, that in fact we don't have to respect them, because to us they are just silly ideas.

Especially if they are making fun of the double standards and hypocrisy of the religious ideas.

eg. I saw a cartoon recently (it may have been on here I am not sure) of a catholic priest getting a blow job from a child, the caption said something like "Don't worry, I'm wearing a condom", That's a clear shot at the hypocrisy of a church that publically claims condoms are bad and immoral, but has hidden and covered up child molestation cases.

I think that sort of cartoon is good because it points out that these religious figures with all their self proclaimed greatness, are not above criticism, and its a reminder that while they tell us we are immoral, they them selves have be guilty of great immorality.


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I guess that's a way to show the religious groups who demand we respect their silly ideas, that in fact we don't have to respect them, because to us they are just silly ideas.




Isn’t that exactly what Charlie Hedbo did? 
And then along came a hail of bullets from AK47s.


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

It’s funny how the President of that great land of the free who you would expect to be a paragon of freedom of speech doesn’t seem to act that way when it comes to Islam.

At the United Nations on September 25, 2012, President Obama said:
_"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"._

For the Charlie Hedbo *victims* his words were *prophetic.*
For the Charlie Hedbo* slaughterers* his words must have been *inspirational.*


----------



## Tisme (28 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> It’s funny how the President of that great land of the free who you would expect to be a paragon of freedom of speech doesn’t seem to act that way when it comes to Islam.
> 
> At the United Nations on September 25, 2012, President Obama said:
> _"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"._




You are cherry picking a quote out of context. Actual speech for the prevailing mood at the time:


_It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future. 

 The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt ”” it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women ”” it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. 

 The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources ”” it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support. 

*The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. *

 Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support. _


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2015)

Tisme whats your stance on religion?


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> You are cherry picking a quote out of context. Actual speech for the prevailing mood at the time:
> 
> The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. *But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated*, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
> 
> Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support. [/I][/SIZE]




It's not cherry picking because how many muslims have condemned anything other than slander against their own religion?
If any cherry picking is done it is done by the Islamicists and the *Islamotoadys*.


----------



## moXJO (28 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well put, but I wonder how many "tough nuts" we have today ?




NOT bloody many when people are getting PTSD over a friggen undie ad.

Tisme thats gold


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> NOT bloody many when people are getting PTSD over a friggen undie ad.
> 
> Tisme thats gold




No bloody surprise considering that our ‘tough nuts’ of yesteryear were not brought up on a diet of leftist, political correctness.

Hell do people even still eat *weetbix* these days?  

They should.  It’s* halal*.


----------



## Tisme (28 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Tisme whats your stance on religion?




Don't like it, but tolerate people who do. Like to think my wife is in a happy place and hedge my bets incase there is a God or Gods.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Isn’t that exactly what Charlie Hedbo did?
> And then along came a hail of bullets from AK47s.




Yes, but whats your point?

I am against the shootings, as I said before, non violence is never justified in reaction to non violent acts.

The cartoonists were in the right, the shooters in the wrong, simple as that


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> NOT bloody many when people are getting PTSD over a friggen undie ad.
> 
> Tisme thats gold




That's low.

The man was worried for his kids.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> That's low.
> 
> The man was worried for his kids.




Worried about what?

Can some one provide a link to the ad? I find it hard to believe Bonds had an ad that was that bad, I mean he mentioned women kissing, and near naked men (well it was an underwear commercial).


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I guess that's a way to show the religious groups who demand we respect their silly ideas, that in fact we don't have to respect them, because to us they are just silly ideas.






Value Collector said:


> Yes, but whats your point?
> 
> I am against the shootings, as I said before, non violence is never justified in reaction to non violent acts.
> 
> The cartoonists were in the right, the shooters in the wrong, simple as that




My comment was not directed against you.  We are obviously in agreement.  My point is that the fine ‘ideal’ which  you espoused is not shared  by Islamicists and their toadying apologists.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Worried about what?
> 
> Can some one provide a link to the ad? I find it hard to believe Bonds had an ad that was that bad, I mean he mentioned women kissing, and near naked men (well it was an underwear commercial).




Didn't Tisme said he was worried with the sexual innuendos in that ad being shown in front of his 11 year olds?

I personally like that ad with the ant-eater having its tongue all over that pretty lady in Bonds briefs, but I didn't have kids then. Now, I don't even watch news in front of the kids.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> Didn't Tisme said he was worried with the sexual innuendos in that ad being shown in front of his 11 year olds?
> 
> I personally like that ad with the ant-eater having its tongue all over that pretty lady in Bonds briefs, but I didn't have kids then. Now, I don't even watch news in front of the kids.




I think you can shelter your kids to much, I mean by the time they are 11, in my opinion they should already understand the concept of sex, a lot of kids have already hit puberty or are about too, by then, you should have had the talk already.

I mean such an ad probably shouldn't be shown before a Disney movie, but if the movie is PG, then I don't see a problem, that's what "parental guidance" is for.


----------



## luutzu (28 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think you can shelter your kids to much, I mean by the time they are 11, in my opinion they should already understand the concept of sex, a lot of kids have already hit puberty or are about too, by then, you should have had the talk already.
> 
> I mean such an ad probably shouldn't be shown before a Disney movie, but if the movie is PG, then I don't see a problem, that's what "parental guidance" is for.




Some parents might be OK, others not. I know I wouldn't want my kids to see it.

Yea, as parents I think we sheltered our kids too much sometime... but I guess it's instinct or something, can't do otherwise. On the bright side of my parenthood, I've been teaching my daughter how to punch and where to punch if she's picked on... let's just hope the principal won' call me in to ask if it's true I told her that if someone hit her she ought to hit back - like my sister did, haha


----------



## Bintang (28 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yea, as parents I think we sheltered our kids too much sometime... but I guess it's instinct or something, can't do otherwise. On the bright side of my parenthood, I've been teaching my daughter how to punch and where to punch if she's picked on... *let's just hope the principal won' call me in to ask if it's true* I told her that if someone hit her she ought to hit back - like my sister did, haha




Just tell him you are following the Pope's example. "_Insult my mother? Expect a punch_"


----------



## Tink (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Like this cartoon. Why didn't thousands of Catholics  pile onto the streets and protest?




Because our country was built on our Christian Heritage

http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Because our country was built on our Christian Heritage
> 
> http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/




My question was rhetorical but that's an interesting link you posted. Thanks.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> That's low.
> 
> The man was worried for his kids.




Yes I'm outraged.How dare his gratuitous violence be spoiled by a bonds ad.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think you can shelter your kids to much, I mean by the time they are 11, in my opinion they should already understand the concept of sex, a lot of kids have already hit puberty or are about too, by then, you should have had the talk already.
> 
> I mean such an ad probably shouldn't be shown before a Disney movie, but if the movie is PG, then I don't see a problem, that's what "parental guidance" is for.




If you are in a movie theatre with your kids and a inappropriate ad comes on, what are you going to do ? 

Walk out and stop your kids seeing the movie ? 

The point is that the theatre management should have considered its audience and not screened a 'M' ad before a 'PG' film.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If you are in a movie theatre with your kids and a inappropriate ad comes on, what are you going to do ?
> 
> Walk out and stop your kids seeing the movie ?
> 
> The point is that the theatre management should have considered its audience and not screened a 'M' ad before a 'PG' film.




I would really like some one to put up a link to this bonds ad.

as I said an 11 year old may already have or is just about to hit puberty, it's probably time to be talking about such things anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I would really like some one to put up a link to this bonds ad.




I would if I could find it, no luck so far but I'm not going to waste my time looking far and wide.

You could look for it yourself too.



> as I said an 11 year old may already have or is just about to hit puberty, it's probably time to be talking about such things anyway.




Sure, but in the parent's own time when they think their kids are ready, not having it shoved down their throats (pardon the expression) by someone else.


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If you are in a movie theatre with your kids and a inappropriate ad comes on, what are you going to do ?
> 
> Walk out and stop your kids seeing the movie ?
> 
> The point is that the theatre management should have considered its audience and not screened a 'M' ad before a 'PG' film.




You are arguing with someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing Rumpole ...  either that or you are arguing with someone who may not be a loving parent.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

“‘Blasphemous’ artwork removed from Paris exhibition,” 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11374899/Blasphemous-artwork-removed-from-Paris-exhibition.html

An artwork depicting high-heeled shoes on Islamic prayer mats has been removed from an exhibition after a Muslim group warned of possible violence in the wake of the Paris attacks.

The French-Algerian artist, Zoulikha Bouabdellah, withdrew the work from an exhibition in a northern Paris suburb with a large Muslim population after an Islamic group told local authorities it could provoke “uncontrollable, irresponsible incidents”.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> I've been teaching my daughter how to punch and where to punch if she's picked on... let's just hope the principal won' call me in to ask if it's true I told her that if someone hit her she ought to hit back - like my sister did, haha




Lol I see a pattern forming.

"Now sweetheart you can punch the $hit out of someone but God forbid if we have to watch a bonds ad that puts me in the position of talking about sex."


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> either that or you are arguing with someone who may not be a loving parent.




Whoa slow down there. They might just be comfortable discussing/explaining topics with their kids.
 I find it amusing that Islam will happily depict cutting heads off yet be violently butt hurt over two guys kissing.
Go team violence!!!


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Lol I see a pattern forming.
> 
> "Now sweetheart you can punch the $hit out of someone but God forbid if we have to watch a bonds ad that puts me in the position of talking about sex."




It's pretty obvious you are trolling for reaction.

My post about the Bonds ad was to demonstrate why I could empathise with anyone who had been ambushed and their sensibilities insulted, because of no prior warning. I get it every other week in my business with cowards looking for mischief. 

I'm not going to apologise for being a good father. My children are my responsibility and in that movie theatre I could not turn their heads or coach them that because indecent behaviour was on the screen I did not approve for x,y,z reason... a big part of child learning is discriminating right and wrong tacitly.

The litmus test here is if a stranger who showed your 11 and 13 year old back in 1996 a video of semi naked women French kissing and semi naked men caressing each other, you be standing there applauding or would you be appalled? Afterall there's nothing wrong with the content so no harm no foul?

Now you can get all Socrates on this and wax philosophical, but at the end of the day my morals (what little there are) aren't for sale to an under wear manufacturer and they aren't for sale to people who would debate children's rights to innocence. 

In my opinion, and it's only an opinion, I believe the generational absence of peer adults who protect the minds and bodies of children has resulted in the uncouth, immature and selfish behaviours easily observed in many of the post baby boomer gensets. I also suspect it's come to the tipping point where those behaviours have assaulted the base senses of so many they are compelled to action via political religions like Islam and in our own backyard the shift to the extreme right in politics.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Lol I see a pattern forming.
> 
> "Now sweetheart you can punch the $hit out of someone but God forbid if we have to watch a bonds ad that puts me in the position of talking about sex."




"if picked on".

I didn't tell her to starts fights or pick on people. But if someone pick on her, she ought to stand up for herself... warn them and if they keep it up, give as good as you get.

You can teach your kids to run and tell the teachers if that suits you. Bullies will just leave those kids alone after the teacher said so.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> In my opinion, and it's only an opinion, I believe the generational absence of peer adults who protect the minds and bodies of children has resulted in the uncouth, immature and selfish behaviours easily observed in many of the post baby boomer gensets. I also suspect it's come to the tipping point where those behaviours have assaulted the base senses of so many they are compelled to action via political religions like Islam and in our own backyard the shift to the extreme right in politics.




Yes, and we also have to consider the malicious world wide spread of child pornography on allegedly unassailable VPNs, where even police supposedly trying to stamp out this sort of thing get involved in its darker aspects.

This may be a departure from the Islam/free speech debate, but it could be argued that the rise of "anything goes" in advertising and by extension, in society is leading to a moribund acceptance of things that shouldn't be, with a vague shrug and a brushoff statement like "that's the world we live in today".

So, good on people like Tisme who actually take some action to correct some of the rubbish forced on us. The general dismissal by some that such people are prudes is insulting and denies the fact that society is moving in ways that may be ultimately destructive.


----------



## lindsayf (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Whoa slow down there. They might just be comfortable discussing/explaining topics with their kids.
> I find it amusing that Islam will happily depict cutting heads off yet be violently butt hurt over two guys kissing.
> Go team violence!!!




Yes it really is very comical (at one level).  There is so much material for Monty Python-esque satire - it is sad that this material is not being fully exploited/exposed and enjoyed in this way through mainstream media comedy.
Imagine todays equivalent of Dave Allen focussing on Islam


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2015)

Tink said:


> Because our country was built on our Christian Heritage
> 
> http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/




You should check out the non-violence "inspirations" to wish they could kill more "ragheads"; the non-death threats to critics of the film "American Sniper".

And oh yea, the non-glorifying of a sniper who said he's proud of his work and wish he'd killed more "savages" (his words) in Iraq.

I'm sure all soldiers follow orders, do things they have to to stay alive, to serve their country... but to say you're proud of killing people? Something's not all right with that.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

]SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and we also have to consider the malicious world wide spread of child pornography on allegedly unassailable VPNs, where even police supposedly trying to stamp out this sort of thing get involved in its darker aspects.
> .




Are you now trying to link homosexuals to child pornography. I was shocked by attitudes here about homosexuality being something that should be hidden away. But we can watch people shoot the hell out of one another comfortably even breed it. Wasn't just the bonds incident.
I'm not interested in your parenting style. 

When even the left are presenting 1950 Abbott style thinking Rumpole, who do I have left to troll:shake:.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Are you now trying to link homosexuals to child pornography.




No, I'm linking child pornography to an advertising and TV cult mindset that sexualises children and therefore plants the seed in some malicious minds that children are to be exploited, just like advertising does.

The Bond's ad (judging only from the opinions of others) painted homosexuals in a promiscuous manner, which even if they were heterosexuals would not be appropriate for children attending a PG movie.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Bond's ad (judging only from the opinions of others) painted homosexuals in a promiscuous manner, which even if they were heterosexuals would not be appropriate for children attending a PG movie.






> INDEPENDENCE DAY	*M*	Fox	29 Aug	7,710,385	26.14	29,496,567




http://www.moviemarshal.com.au/boxaus1996.html

Oh the flavor


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> http://www.moviemarshal.com.au/boxaus1996.html
> 
> Oh the flavor




I've seen Independence Day and I dispute that rating. I doubt if it shows lesbians sticking their tongues down each others throats.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's pretty obvious you are trolling for reaction.




You got my number

I have no problem with your parenting style. In fact protecting those from what is harmful, or from things that impinge on ones rights to safety and freedom is worth fighting for.

As for Islam yep I will fight for your right to freedom of religious practice. And your protection from abuse in everyday life. But the moment you start thinking I give a toss what your sky daddy said, or agree with any nutter religion being forced on to the unwilling public think again.

We called BS to the catholic church and kicked the stuffing out of them for their outdated views and pedophilia. We have countries NOW at this time killing homosexuals, stoning women and allowing the rape of children in the name of Islam. All of this and where is the equivalent outrage from Muslim communities, or even those decrying the church? 

I went to the beach with my kids and the surf was a bit rough. So we walked over to the rock pools where I was told by a group of Muslim men that I wasn't allowed to enter as their women were bathing. I asked them did they have a permit as they started to physically surround me  "no" was the reply. To cut it short, they sure didn't like me paddling in that pool that day.

On the other hand I have done work for many Muslim families who are beyond nice, tell me wonderful stories of their homeland and are genuinely good people. I have no problem with religion being a private thing. 

But when it is not only a religion but their politics and law, problems will arise. 

Hey Tisme one more:

*IN MEMORIAL OF THE VICTIMS OF THE BONDS AD BOMBING BLITS OF 1996*



*Lest We Forget*


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I've seen Independence Day and I dispute that rating. I doubt if it shows lesbians sticking their tongues down each others throats.




Are you the rating Board are you?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Are you the rating Board are you?




You are not trying to deny my freedom of speech I hope ?


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You are not trying to deny my freedom of speech I hope ?




 No questioning your credentials.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> No questioning your credentials.




If ID4 had a scene where a couple is doing the bond ad thing, it probably will get an R18+ rating. Either way, he found it offensive to his kids so what's the problem?


So it's OK to mock people's faith to sell papers, but not cool when a father is upset at things shown, without warnings, that he believe would harm his children?

Seems your definition of free speech only involves doing things that upset people.


----------



## moXJO (29 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> If ID4 had a scene where a couple is doing the bond ad thing, it probably will get an R18+ rating. Either way, he found it offensive to his kids so what's the problem?
> 
> 
> So it's OK to mock people's faith to sell papers, but not cool when a father is upset at things shown, without warnings, that he believe would harm his children?
> ...




Well if it had an M rating no use getting your undies in a knot over undie pr0n. That is the whole point of a rating.

Where did I say anyone should have free speech. I think no one should be allowed to have an opinion luutzu and should be flogged on the spot for having one. The mere notion that your confused post resembles something of an opinion offends me and should get you banned and beaten.
I also believe you should only read the post that offends you and bugger the rest


----------



## FxTrader (29 January 2015)

luutzu said:


> So it's OK to mock people's faith..



It's always "OK" to mock superstition and fictitious mythology.  Religious superstition deservers no respect and should receive none from any rational, free thinking person.  Of course fear and intimidation can be used to muzzle apostates and disciples of free speech.

On the subject of the peaceful Muslim majority, I wholly agree with Brigitte Gabriel, they don't matter.  It's the millions of Muslims with radical views that are ripping apart the fabric of human society.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2015)

Is there another view of Brigette Gabriel and whether she actually has a clue about she is saying?

Is it just easy to accept an aggressive, bombastic persons words without challenge.  I did some more looking on Brigette. Perhaps another perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MrtjdEyNtc


----------



## FxTrader (29 January 2015)

basilio said:


> Is there another view of Brigette Gabriel and whether she actually has a clue about she is saying?



While the numbers she quotes in the vid are not backed with reference to hard data, what part of what she said do you proclaim was clueless?  If you want stats on the large number of Muslims that hold what non-Muslims would consider "radical" views they are everywhere if you bother to look (very small sample)...
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/



> Is it just easy to accept an aggressive, bombastic persons words without challenge.



She was challenged in the video exchange and gave an aggressive response and quite a good one at that.  Attacking the messenger does not diminish the force of the argument she was making.  It indeed does not matter how many peaceful Muslims there are when thousands are being slaughtered and millions oppressed by fundamentalist Islamists.



> I did some more looking on Brigette. Perhaps another perspective.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MrtjdEyNtc



Hardly a neutral perspective from a obvious apologist for Islam.  How effective has working with "peaceful" Muslims been in stemming the tide of violence perpetrated by extremist Muslims?  Perhaps just as effective as working with peaceful Germans or Japanese would have been in WW2?  

When a war is declared, appeals to a peace are interpreted as a sign of weakness and just ignored by the aggressors.  Only military defeat or stalemate leads to any resolution.  Freedom from tyranny (religion inspired or otherwise) comes at the cost of human life and always will.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

> Hardly a neutral perspective from a obvious apologist for Islam. How effective has working with "peaceful" Muslims been in stemming the tide of violence perpetrated by extremist Muslims? Perhaps just as effective as working with peaceful Germans or Japanese would have been in WW2?




How can you or I assess the effectiveness of the relationships between our authorities and the various Muslim communities in this country ? Are you a member of ASIO or the AFP ? If so you would not be asking a question, you would be giving an answer.

In the case of the dill who held up the cafe, he was well in the view of relevant authorities for some time who let him remain free on bail on serious charges, so I would say that the effects of his actions were the result of inaction by our own authorities rather than of any support or concealment by  other Muslims.

Put it this way. Muslims make up about 1.5% of the population. If they don't cooperate they are going to be on watch lists and risk having their doors kicked down by our relevant organisatons. 

The incentives are all there for them to be helpful, and we would achieve much more by gaining their trust than we would by isolating and disparaging them and turning some of them into terrorists or terrorist facilitators.

The people here who say "there are no moderate Muslims" are, as someone else has already said, sowing the seeds of a civil war on our own land. 

Better a few drops of honey than bucket loads of spite in this situation.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The people here who say "there are no moderate Muslims" are, as someone else has already said, sowing the seeds of a civil war on our own land.




You should voice you objection to the Prime Minister Of Turkey:


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> You should voice you objection to the Prime Minister Of Turkey:
> 
> View attachment 61354




The President of Turkey is one man. Does he speak for every Muslim ?


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The President of Turkey is one man. Does he speak for every Muslim ?




Ask him.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Ask him.




Why don't you do a survey of Muslims on the street and ask them ?


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't you do a survey of Muslims on the street and ask them ?




Which street where? Sydney, Islamabad, Luton, Riyadh?
-----------------------------------------------------                    


bellenuit said:


> As regards to Bintang's claim that there are no moderate Muslims, you are missing the subtlety of what he is saying. It was obvious from the start that he was not saying that all those who claim to be and act like moderate Muslims are lying and are in fact extreme in their views, but saying that those who claim to be and act like moderate Muslims are in fact not really Muslims according to the dictates of their faith. If a true Muslim means following the Islamic doctrine of the Quran and Hadith, then a moderate (by our standards) Muslim is not a true Muslim using that definition.
> 
> What do you make of the comments of Erdogan, PM of Turkey, that he posted above. Erdogan is endorsing Bintang's view. That also explains why Turkey is one of the biggest supporters of ISIS. Additionally, Erdogan said just a day or two ago that the Charlie Hebdo killings were actually organised by the US and Israel. Typical denials by Muslim leaders that always try to disassociate Islam from such barbarism. Erdogan is also the person who said just a month ago that women were lesser persons than men (you did notice all the Muslim protesters hitting the street over that statement?).


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

> Muslims are in fact not really Muslims according to the dictates of their faith. If a true Muslim means following the Islamic doctrine of the Quran and Hadith, then a moderate (by our standards) Muslim is not a true Muslim using that definition.




As I said, one man's interpretation. There are hardliners and moderates like I keep on saying. So much so that I am tired of saying it and will leave you to your Islamophobia.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> ….. and will leave you to your Islamophobia.




Thanks. I'll do that. Need to zip and cast my vote.

"****** have recently announced that they have opened voting for their Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015. The awards ceremony promises to be “an evening of comedy mayhem as we recognise the worst Islamotoadys from around the world.”


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2015)

> Muslims are in fact not really Muslims according to the dictates of their faith. If a true Muslim means following the Islamic doctrine of the Quran and Hadith, then a moderate (by our standards) Muslim is not a true Muslim using that definition



.

You can say the same for the Christians. 

Thats the good thing about moderates in any religion, they take their books less seriously.

The one thing they are guilty of though is spreading the silly ideas, so that eventually others will take the books seriously


----------



## Macquack (29 January 2015)

Bintang,  you keep banging on about the evils of islam, and you may be right?

What is your plan to deal with a perceived threat, until that threat is actually realised by way of committing a  criminal offence, in a free country where it is not a crime to follow a particular religion?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> The one thing they are guilty of though is spreading the silly ideas,...




especially to young and impressionable minds.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> "****** have recently announced that they have opened voting for their Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015. The awards ceremony promises to be “an evening of comedy mayhem as we recognise the worst Islamotoadys from around the world.”






Macquack said:


> Bintang,  you keep banging on about the evils of islam, and you may be right?
> 
> What is your plan to deal with a perceived threat, until that threat is actually realised by way of committing a  criminal offence, in a free country where it is not a crime to follow a particular religion?




1)	Spread the truth about Islam
2)	Support events such as the Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015
3)	Make more politicians take notice by doing 1) and 2)


----------



## Macquack (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> 1)	Spread the truth about Islam





Bintang said:


> The most authentic form of Islam being practised in the world today is that being practised by ISIS




Your truth is debatable and appears to me to be promoting radical behaviour.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> Your truth is debatable and appears to me to be promoting radical behaviour.




What kind of radical behaviour? Please explain.


----------



## Macquack (29 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> What kind of radical behaviour? Please explain.




The bit about the "most authentic" islam being practiced by "ISIS", so get on your bikes boys and sign up to a good cause.


----------



## Bintang (29 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> The bit about the "most authentic" islam being practiced by "ISIS", so get on your bikes boys and sign up to a good cause.




You have a more creative imagination than I would ever have given you credit for.

I have stated an opinion, which of course you are welcome to challenge but it does not incite you or anyone else to any course of action other than to think.

PS: on second thoughts I guess 'thinking' for some people would be radical behaviour. Sorry MacQuack I stand corrected.


----------



## Tink (30 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and we also have to consider the malicious world wide spread of child pornography on allegedly unassailable VPNs, where even police supposedly trying to stamp out this sort of thing get involved in its darker aspects.
> 
> This may be a departure from the Islam/free speech debate, but it could be argued that the rise of "anything goes" in advertising and by extension, in society is leading to a moribund acceptance of things that shouldn't be, with a vague shrug and a brushoff statement like "that's the world we live in today".
> 
> So, good on people like Tisme who actually take some action to correct some of the rubbish forced on us. The general dismissal by some that such people are prudes is insulting and denies the fact that society is moving in ways that may be ultimately destructive.




I agree with your post, Rumpole, and Tisme, well said.


----------



## Bintang (30 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I …... will leave you to your *Islamophobia*.






luutzu said:


> When did we in the West, with our Christian values, legally abolish slavery? Segregation? Women's rights? *Gay rights*? Not that long ago.. and on matter of* gay rights*, we're not exactly out of the woods yet are we?




Today we are witnessing the terms *Islamophobia* and *Islamophobic* being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society.  The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words *the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.*

In the main, it is leftist liberals who approve of this approach to promoting the Islamic agenda, in the same way as they promoted the gay agenda by inventing and using the terms homophobia and homophobic.

Personally I have no objection to gays. In a free, secular society they should indeed be free to live their lives the way they choose to live.  But another very important reason for my lack of objection is that gays have never and will never try to convert me or other non-gay people into becoming gay. Gays do not protest in the street with slogans telling us that all people should become gay and if they do not they will burn in hell.

But there is something *hugely ironic and bizarre* about the left helping to demonize critics of Islam with the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic because they are *promoting an ideology, which hates gay people* and given the chance will put them all to death just for being gay.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
_"Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah …. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."_


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> Today we are witnessing the terms *Islamophobia* and *Islamophobic* being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society.  The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words *the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.*
> 
> In the main, it is leftist liberals who approve of this approach to promoting the Islamic agenda, in the same way as they promoted the gay agenda by inventing and using the terms homophobia and homophobic.
> 
> ...





Yea, Christianity loves gay people. OK, tolerate them. Right. I think the term "sodomy" came from God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or something right? I believe homosexuals, apparently not of God's creation, so upset God he destroy and wipe cities of the map - I think this was before Noah's flood.

If our secular law doesn't make it illegal, all religion will tell their flocks to hunt down "the gays" and "cure" them. I saw clips of some baptist in the US claiming he could cure homosexuality (from Stewart's Daily Show); and look up how homosexuals are treated in Uganda or South Sudan by Christians at the urging (and funding) of US evangelicals. And oh, does Australia permit gay marriage or still believe it will ruin the wonderful institution of heterosexual marriages?


I can't speak for anyone but I have no problem with you or anyone criticising Islam or any religion or practices. You just have to know what criticism really mean. Trust me, though it might seem the same, to criticise is not to demean or to mock, and definitely not to  make baseless assumptions or conclusions based on a few selective facts and figures.

For people to take your criticism seriously, take it as objective assessment of the issue... you have to at least use the same standard, the same measure. And let that measure be use against what you are for.

Example: Islam does not permit homosexuality. That's wrong Islam. But does Christianity? Does Christian values and society permit it? Technically no because the Church does not accept homosexuality and the West are only open to it because its secular law permits it, somewhat, and only recently.

Example two: Terrorists are all Muslims; terrorists do nasty things like chopping heads, killing innocent people; waging war. Hence Islam, because it influence the Muslim terrorists, are inherently evil.

OK. But... most of our Western soldiers are Christian, or Jewish, some are even Muslims. Do we not kill people in the Middle East? Do we not have people kill and call it "collateral damages", are we not waging war ourselves?

Does one side killing their enemy make one side good while the other side bad? Is that objective?


Trust me, political correctness doesn't just apply to talking about minorities.


----------



## bellenuit (30 January 2015)

Bintang said:


> But there is something *hugely ironic and bizarre* about the left helping to demonize critics of Islam with the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic because they are *promoting an ideology, which hates gay people* and given the chance will put them all to death just for being gay.




My observation is that the left (many, but not all) are only interested in a victimhood cause if it can in some way be attributed to something wrong done by the West and in particular the US or Israel. The only people on the left that are wiling to speak out against the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamic extremists are secular atheists. They too are the only ones willing to shine the light not just on the extremists, but also on the constant harassment, denial of rights and sometimes barbarities done against women, religious minorities (including atheists) and members of the LGBT community perpetrated by Islamic majority countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I remember when Gillard gave her infamous misogyny speech, she said that she would speak out against misogyny whenever and wherever she saw it. It seems she is very moved by Tony Abbott looking at his watch when she speaks, but hasn't seen fit to speak out against the barbarity committed against women by ISIS and Boko Harem, nor of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and dozens of other Islamic majority states. To do that would be Islamophobic I presume.

It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> My observation is that the left (many, but not all) are only interested in a victimhood cause if it can in some way be attributed to something wrong done by the West and in particular the US or Israel. The only people on the left that are wiling to speak out against the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamic extremists are secular atheists. They too are the only ones willing to shine the light not just on the extremists, but also on the constant harassment, denial of rights and sometimes barbarities done against women, religious minorities (including atheists) and members of the LGBT community perpetrated by Islamic majority countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> I remember when Gillard gave her infamous misogyny speech, she said that she would speak out against misogyny whenever and wherever she saw it. It seems she is very moved by Tony Abbott looking at his watch when she speaks, but hasn't seen fit to speak out against the barbarity committed against women by ISIS and Boko Harem, nor of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and dozens of other Islamic majority states. To do that would be Islamophobic I presume.
> 
> It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.





Even if it has all to do with Islam, do you seriously think they'd care? It's politics and this nasty business call imperial grand strategy.

And how do you suppose any political leaders, our Western ones as well as those of other states... how could they honestly criticise Islam through the acts of terrorists (OK, Muslims) and not be laughed at for their hypocrisy. 
They do it anyway, but not in words you'd want them; and not do it consistently lest others catch on that it's all too funny.


----------



## Bintang (30 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.




Poor Tony ‘can’t take a trick’. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for him. Here he is trying his darnedest to not appear being Islamophobic and despite that he  has been made one of the nominees for the 2015 Islamophobia Awards.

Tony Abbott’s name can be found in the list of International nominees and the reason for his listing is stated as:
_“ - increased Islamophobia since his term began,
  - his proposed anti-terrorism laws
  - not making a clear statement against Islamophobia”_

The second charge is most interesting. It appears to be saying that if you try to stop terrorism you are islamophobic but we keep getting told that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.


----------



## Tisme (1 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.




I think the problem is positive proof that Islam and Islamic Terrorism are somehow linked.

After some effort I think I am well on the way to proving a connection between the two, if only I could solve for "x":


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

> Today we are witnessing the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society. The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.




It's a lot easier to call someone "Islamaphobic" if they have little capacity to view people as people instead of radical ideologues  and they automatically assume that the lady next to them  in the bus wearing a burka is really carrying a bomb under her garments.

If you object to the word "Islamaphobia", try "paranoia", and don't assume that everyone capable of any sort of human decency is "of the Left". That seems to imply that all those on the Right are paranoid rednecks with no sense of empathy with the human race. If that is how you want to describe yourself, fine.


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a lot easier to call someone "Islamaphobic" if they have little capacity to view people as people instead of radical ideologues  and they automatically assume that the lady next to them  in the bus wearing a burka is really carrying a bomb under her garments.




While acknowledging that there are many people out there who are just plain racist or religionist (if that is a word), a problem I have with the above statement is that many of the people, particularly some prominent people, who are being called Islamaphobic are being called it because they do treat Muslims as real people deserving of respect. I am referring to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

They are the ones who are out there shining a light on the appalling treatment of women in Islamic society. They are ones that call out the Saudi Government for their appalling whipping of secular blogger Raif Badawi. They are the ones that constantly demand better education for girls in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones exposing every single atrocity committed against ordinary people in the name of Islam.

And for that they are being called Islamophobic. It's their culture you see, so who are we to criticise. 

The hypocrisy of some is unbelievable. While the so called "Islamaphobes" are being attacked for speaking out against injustice in the Islamic world and expecting Islamic societies to uphold human values, they are just showing that they see Muslims as people like anyone else and therefore should be capable of treating others, particularly their own, with dignity and respect. Those who attack them for doing this are the real racists/religionists. They are showing that they believe that Muslims are not as capable as others so we should not set them the same standards as "other human beings" nor judge them by these standards.


----------



## luutzu (1 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> While acknowledging that there are many people out there who are just plain racist or religionist (if that is a word), a problem I have with the above statement is that many of the people, particularly some prominent people, who are being called Islamaphobic are being called it because they do treat Muslims as real people deserving of respect. I am referring to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
> 
> They are the ones who are out there shining a light on the appalling treatment of women in Islamic society. They are ones that call out the Saudi Government for their appalling whipping of secular blogger Raif Badawi. They are the ones that constantly demand better education for girls in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones exposing every single atrocity committed against ordinary people in the name of Islam.
> 
> ...




I don't think SirRumpole call honest critics of Islam/Muslim Islamophobes.

You are right that there are those who would label any critics of Islam "Islamophobes", just as there are those who see any crimes and misdemeanors by any Muslims as the fault of Islam... So I think the honest thing to do is look at each act and each person as their own person, and not representative of the entire race or religion.

Back in Imperial China (all the way up to the Last Emperor), a crime committed directly against the Emperor would result not in just the perpetrator being executed but also three generations of his family - grandfolks's generation, siblings, children and their cousins... And depends on the mood of the Emperor, he could ordered five generations instead of three. I think all the servants will also be executed too.

Are we going to blame that on Chinese blood being cruel? Or Confucian teaching? Or Buddhism? Taoism? Or just the emperor and state policies he dictated?


Take the sanctions in Iraq against Saddam (before Bush Jr. ended it with the invasion)... Reports from the UN or some human rights organisation estimated that the sanction kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through malnourishment and through lack of medication for preventable illnesses. When Madeleine Albright (the then US Secretary of States) was asked if that's worth the price of bringing Saddam in line she said "Yes."

Those sanctions were done in the name of Western values; done against tyranny and promotion of democratic principles - so it was claimed... But looking at the deaths and suffering... are we going to blame Western and Christian values or the idiotic policies of those who claim to represent our values and our interests abroad?


So let say that that's regarding foreigners and the world is cruel and we must be cruel for just ends; that with our own people we'll be more generous, more benign... Are we?

We're not going to have peace and justice if we start pointing fingers at entire race and people... Peace might start with us thinking that "... in the final analysis, we all breathe the same air; we all cherish in the future of our children" (JFK); That cruelty and hatred against others ought not to be done, and we ought not to allow or agree with it.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

> The hypocrisy of some is unbelievable. While the so called "Islamaphobes" are being attacked for speaking out against injustice in the Islamic world and expecting Islamic societies to uphold human values, they are just showing that they see Muslims as people like anyone else and therefore should be capable of treating others, particularly their own, with dignity and respect.




Well, I think you need to expand on that. Islam as a religion has much to criticise. The world would be better off without it imo. But to suspect everyone who says they are Muslim as capable of terrorism or support of terrorism is undeniably bigoted and paranoid.

"There are no moderate Muslims" as espoused by the President of Turkey, was put forward by Bintang as being a statement that all Muslims support. "This guy thinks like that so therefore all Muslims do". You might as well say that some Conservative Christians hate blacks, therefore all Christians do.

By all means criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. Just don't take it out on all Muslims. That is a recipe for social disorder and expansion of an "Us against them" mentality.


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I think you need to expand on that. Islam as a religion has much to criticise. The world would be better off without it imo. But to suspect everyone who says they are Muslim as capable of terrorism or support of terrorism is undeniably bigoted and paranoid.




That is not something I have said, but your phraseology is a bit fuzzy there and implies something you didn't mean to say IMO. Everyone is capable of terrorism and capable of supporting terrorism, Muslim or non-Muslim, but very few do terrorist acts or support terrorism. It is no different to saying everyone is capable of murder.  



> "There are no moderate Muslims" as espoused by the President of Turkey, was put forward by Bintang as being a statement that all Muslims support.




I don't recall Bintang saying that all Muslims support what the Turkish PM said. He just used that image to illustrate his point that there are no Muslim moderates, based on a strict interpretation of the Quran. He was trying to show that if a Muslim is a person who strictly follows the teachings of Mohammad and the dictates of the Quran, then that person would by any definition be an extremist. Those Muslims who we see as moderates are not Muslims in that strict sense. That is how I interpreted what he said. Erdogan was just confirming that view.



> By all means criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. Just don't take it out on all Muslims. That is a recipe for social disorder and expansion of an "Us against them" mentality.




Care to give examples of where I have done that.


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think the problem is positive proof that Islam and Islamic Terrorism are somehow linked.
> 
> After some effort I think I am well on the way to proving a connection between the two, if only I could solve for "x":




x = Muhammad


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> but they would not be called Muslim based on a true interpretation of the Quran.




The definition of "true interpretation" of the Quran is open to interpretation, but obviously having a religious textbook that is open to interpretation is a danger in itself.

Edit: I see you changed the word "true" to "strict". The point is how many Muslims in this country take a "strict" interpretation of the Quran ? A few maybe but I think most take a more relaxed view as I've said before. There are also people who take a strict view of the Bible. 

Whatever interpretation of both these books, the fundamental ideology is flawed. That is the point we need to get across, and treat the holders of these ideas as deluded not as if they are all potential enemies.


> Care to give examples of where I have done that.




I was speaking generally, not referring to your good self in particular.

If it helps I should have said "By all means *we should* criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. "


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> "There are no moderate Muslims" as espoused by the President of Turkey, was *put forward by Bintang as being a statement that all Muslims support*. "This guy thinks like that so therefore all Muslims do". You might as well say that some Conservative Christians hate blacks, therefore all Christians do.




Oh really. Let’s review what was actually said.



SirRumpole said:


> The people here who say "there are no moderate Muslims" are, as someone else has already said, sowing the seeds of a civil war on our own land.






Bintang said:


> You should voice your objection to the Prime Minister Of Turkey:




All I did was provide you with *an example of someone who says “there are no moderate Muslims”*. Because that person happens to be a muslim and leader of a majority muslim country it did not quite fit your narrative.  *So now you are trying to twist the facts.* 



SirRumpole said:


> By all means criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. Just don't take it out on all Muslims. That is a recipe for social disorder and expansion of an "Us against them" mentality.




Well the fact of the matter is that there is already a great deal of “social disorder” in Western countries relating to Islam. What is the *root cause* of this?
Is the root cause anyone who criticizes Islam or is it the fact that the values of Islam are totally incompatible with the values of secular, Western society?

Consider this another way. If Islam did not exist at all in Western society would it be attracting so much criticism?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

> What is the root cause of this?




A few radicals who take a "strict" interpretation of the Quran.


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> A few radicals who take a "strict" interpretation of the Quran.




Yes, a bit like the small percentage of radicals called Nazis during the 1930's who took a strict interpretation of 'Mein Kampf'.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> Yes, a bit like the small percentage of radicals called Nazis during the 1930's who took a strict interpretation of 'Mein Kampf'.




Well then, let's have your solution to the problem ? Have you got one or are you content with just complaining ?


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well then, let's have your solution to the problem ? Have you got one or are you content with just complaining ?




It is not possible to have a sensible discussion about solutions with people who deny that there is a problem.
People like Geert Wilders try but are howled down by shouts of Islamophobia.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> It is not possible to have a sensible discussion about solutions with people who deny that there is a problem.
> People like Geert Wilders try but are howled down by shouts of Islamophobia.
> 
> View attachment 61400




A complete cop out.

 I don't deny there is a problem, I question the extent of it in this country.

So I ask again, what is your solution ?


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> A complete cop out.
> I don't deny there is a problem, I question the extent of it in this country.
> So I ask again, what is your solution ?




You are correct to question the extent of it (so far)  in this country but in this thread we have been discussing  ‘The West’ in general – not just Australia.

One of the worst cop outs of this thread is actually the following.



SirRumpole said:


> As I said, one man's interpretation. There are hardliners and moderates like I keep on saying. So much so that I am tired of saying it and *will leave you to your Islamophobia.*




In 1938 Neville Chamberlain, assured the British public (after signing an agreement with Adolph Hitler)  that he had secured ‘peace for our time’ so ‘go home and get a nice quiet sleep’.

At the time, the lone voice, Winston Churchill attempted to make those around him recognise that there was a  ‘problem’ and he proposed solutions. But he was ridiculed by many and ignored by others. If this was being replayed today Churchill would be howled down with the charge of *Naziphobia*.

And that brings me back to the actual topic of this thread since  the only complaint I have made in this thread is the very complaint posed by the title of this thread, which is that The West Has Lost its freedom of Speech.
Freedom of speech is destroyed when the use of imbicilic slogans such as Islamophibia are used to silence or ignore discussion.

If you no longer deny that there is a problem and want to discuss solutions I suggest we start a new thread.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> If you no longer deny that there is a problem and want to discuss solutions I suggest we start a new thread.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29484&p=859184#post859184


----------



## Bintang (1 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29484&p=859184#post859184




Well done. 10 out of 10 for initiative.


----------



## DB008 (15 February 2015)

*Copenhagen free speech debate shooting: One dead*




> Gunmen have killed one person and injured three police officers at a free speech debate in Copenhagen attended by a controversial Swedish cartoonist, officials say.
> 
> The French ambassador was also present at the seminar.
> 
> ...




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31472423?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> Freedom of speech is destroyed when the use of imbicilic slogans such as Islamophibia are used to silence or ignore discussion.




A couple of examples of that in recent times. Islam is one. That the word "denier" now has a widespread meaning relating to a specific subject (climate change) is another. Both are efforts to stifle or outright silence debate.

On a positive note, the anti-free speech defamation laws have been dropped here in Tas. Sadly, it took a private company to force some commonsense and put a stop to the government's agenda.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 February 2015)

I suppose you could say the increasing use of "homophobia" and "xenophobia" were other examples of debate stifling.


----------



## DB008 (15 February 2015)

*Copenhagen shootings: Police kill 'gunman' after two attacks*



> Police in Copenhagen say they have shot dead a man they believe was behind two deadly attacks in the Danish capital hours earlier.
> 
> Police say they killed the man in the Norrebro district after he opened fire on them.
> 
> ...




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31475803


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you could say the increasing use of "homophobia" and "xenophobia" were other examples of debate stifling.




One could probably add "misogynist", "racist" and perhaps _XYZ_ "sympathiser/lobbyist" to the list of terms exploited for such purposes.


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you could say the increasing use of "homophobia" and "xenophobia" were other examples of debate stifling.






cynic said:


> One could probably add "misogynist", "racist" and perhaps _XYZ_ "sympathiser/lobbyist" to the list of terms exploited for such purposes.




I would add that *Islam* itself is *homophobic* and that should make all *gay* people *islamophobic*.

Islam Question and Answer: Why does Islam forbid lesbianism and homosexuality?

Killed for 'being gay': ISIS savages blindfolded man and threw him off tower block - then stoned him to death when he SURVIVED the fall


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

*Islamophobia* is a word that was made up by the Mulsim Brother Hood in the early 1990’s.  Its direct purpose is to suppress *freedom of speech* because an Islamophobe is someone who says something that Muslims don’t like to hear. Such people must be silenced. Therefore it is a fascist term which is meant to suppress.

Bill Warner explains it very succinctly in this video:


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

Of course it's possible than an individual could actually be one of the above descriptions, it's just the gratuitous use of these words to shut down debate that we object to , yes ?


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course it's possible than an individual could actually be one of the above descriptions, it's just the gratuitous use of these words to shut down debate that we object to , yes ?




Depends on what you think the words mean. What is your definition of Islamophobic?

Eg. If islamophobic is used in the sense of having a 'fear of islam' then a gay person who has such a fear (for obviously valid and rational reasons) is thereby islamophobic. Is there something wrong with that?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> Depends on what you think the words mean. What is your definition of Islamophobic?
> 
> Eg. If islamophobic is used in the sense of having a 'fear of islam' then a gay person who has such a fear (for obviously valid and rational reasons) is thereby islamophobic. Is there something wrong with that?




There is nothing wrong with being afraid of anything for "valid and rational reasons". However you could have a fear of snakes on the grounds that some snakes are dangerous, however a lot are not. The idea is not to go around killing all snakes on suspicion, but to learn how to sort out the poisonous ones from the harmless ones.

Saying "all Muslims are dangerous" is the same as saying "all snakes are dangerous", neither is a rational or valid statement.


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Saying "all Muslims are dangerous" is the same as saying "all snakes are dangerous", neither is a rational or valid statement.




Who said 'all muslims are dangerous' apart from yourself?

I personally have a fear of Islam because of the proved potential of its ideology to cause havoc in Western society.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> Who said 'all muslims are dangerous' apart from yourself?




I take it then that you disagree with the President of Turkey, whom you quoted as saying "there are no moderate Muslims" ?


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I take it then that you disagree with the President of Turkey, whom you quoted as saying "there are no moderate Muslims" ?




Rumpole, you are so very confused:
I did not quote the Turkish PM as saying that because that’s not what he said. But I absolutely agree with what he did say which was, “There is no moderate Islam”


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

While we are on the use of derogatory terms to close down debate, would you consider that the word "Islamotoady" falls into the same category as "Islamophobic" ?



			
				Bintang Post #581 said:
			
		

> Well there are a very large number of people in America who believe that President Obama himself is a muslim (but a closet one). I happen to think they are wrong. He is just America’s chief Islamotoady.


----------



## luutzu (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> *Islamophobia* is a word that was made up by the Mulsim Brother Hood in the early 1990’s.  Its direct purpose is to suppress *freedom of speech* because an Islamophobe is someone who says something that Muslims don’t like to hear. Such people must be silenced. Therefore it is a fascist term which is meant to suppress.
> 
> Bill Warner explains it very succinctly in this video:





From WikiPedia: *Islamophobia *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
Etymology and definitions[edit]
The word Islamophobia is a neologism[1] formed from Islam and -phobia, a suffix used in English to form "nouns with the sense ‘fear of ””””’, ‘aversion to ””””’."[2] The compound form Islamo- contains the thematic vowel -o-, and is found in earlier coinages such as Islamo-Christian from the 19th century.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word means "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" and is attested to in English as early as 1923.[3] Mattias Gardell defines Islamophobia as "socially reproduced prejudices and aversion to Islam and Muslims, as well as actions and practices that attack, exclude or discriminate against persons on the basis that they are or perceived to be Muslim and be associated with Islam".[4]


You do have the same internet as we do right?


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course it's possible than an individual could actually be one of the above descriptions, it's just the gratuitous use of these words to shut down debate that we object to , yes ?




+1

Situations do occur where one finds oneself debating individuals that start looking suspiciously like they do indeed fit such definitions.

However, direction of such accusations at an opponent is generally futile (and often counterproductive).


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> While we are on the use of derogatory terms to close down debate, would you consider that the word "Islamotoady" falls into the same category as "Islamophobic" ?




Yes. And that is why I used it …….->



cynic said:


> +1
> Situations do occur where one finds oneself debating individuals that start looking suspiciously like they do indeed fit such definitions.
> 
> However, direction of such accusations at an opponent is generally futile (and often counterproductive).




->….. it works both ways.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> ->….. it works both ways.



I'm not quite certain that I understand your meaning here. 

Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

cynic said:


> I'm not quite certain that I understand your meaning here.
> 
> Would you care to elaborate?




The last few posts have merely established that on one side of this debate there are islamophobes and on the other side there are islamotoadys. This is about as interesting and useful as saying that one side of parliament comprises Laborphobes and the other side Liberalphobes.

No amount of name calling does anything to further the quality of the debate but it does demonstrate the lengths that people will go to to shut down debate and try to limit freedom of speech.


----------



## cynic (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> The last few posts...



Thanks for that Bintang.

I quite agree that the scenario can (and does at times) occur in the manner you've described and am glad you took the time to highlight that possibility.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> No amount of name calling does anything to further the quality of the debate but it does demonstrate the lengths that people will go to to shut down debate and try to limit freedom of speech.




It doesn't seem to have stopped you


----------



## moXJO (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you could say the increasing use of "homophobia" and "xenophobia" were other examples of debate stifling.




I suppose you could , but context is everything. 
Attacking a religion or a dirty dirty lefty  is one opinion/belief system attacking another. 
Look how nasty political threads get without people thinking twice.

Someone attacking a race or gender preference is different again as you are attacking what makes that person not what choice they made.

If you are raising legitimate concerns, not just spewing out hate then debate away.


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

luutzu said:


> From WikiPedia: *Islamophobia *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
> Etymology and definitions[edit]
> _According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word means "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" and is attested to in English as early as 1923.[3]_




Yes, you are partly correct and I am partly wrong.  After doing some extra research I can see that the etymology of the word ‘islamophobia’ is older than the 1990’s so that the Muslim Brother Hood cannot be credited with its invention. (so clearly many internet sources are wrong on this point).  However, prior to the 1990’s the word was seldom used -  but some time after that it was *seized on and exploited*.

*1994*   Times 28 June 21/5,   _I suspect that Islamophobia, under the guise of fundamentalist scaremongering, is being deliberately promoted in the overseas media._ 



luutzu said:


> From WikiPedia: *Islamophobia *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
> Etymology and definitions[edit]
> _*Mattias Gardell* defines Islamophobia as "socially reproduced prejudices and aversion to Islam and Muslims, as well as actions and practices that attack, exclude or discriminate against persons on the basis that they are or perceived to be Muslim and be associated with Islam".[4]_




Note that the latter half of the Wikipedia entry on islamophobia references _Mattias Gardell [4]_. His definition dates from much later than the 1990’s and is unsurprising given his personal political views. 

It is immaterial who actually invented the term islamophobia. It does not change the fact that the word is being used deliberately to intimidate critics of islam into silence.


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It doesn't seem to have stopped you




That's right because I refuse to submit to Islam.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2015)

Bintang said:


> That's right because I refuse to submit to Islam.




Who is asking you to submit ?

I think all religions have nasty sides to them, but that doesn't mean that they are all hotspots of terrorism. More should be done in the way of intelligence gathering to sort out the wolves from the sheep, and deport them if we can, but attacking a whole group of people because of a few is irrational.


----------



## Bintang (16 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Who is asking you to submit ?
> 
> I think all religions have nasty sides to them, but that doesn't mean that they are all hotspots of terrorism. More should be done in the way of intelligence gathering to sort out the wolves from the sheep, and deport them if we can, but attacking a whole group of people because of a few is irrational.





Attacking Islam is not the same as _attacking a whole group of people_. Islam is an ideology.




PS. Nothing in the above photos is 'hate speech'. It is just peaceful expressions of Islam.


----------



## Tink (19 March 2015)

Good on you, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine, for speaking out and saying it as it is.

*SBS takes a controversial stance on family values. 
*
_TWO opposing commercials were booked this month on SBS, the broadcaster we pay $287 million a year to make us more civilised.

Guess which was banned for offending good taste?_

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...268572344?sv=9b5933dda322ffe27f3827f451a8fd8e


----------



## Tisme (19 March 2015)

Tink said:


> Good on you, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine, for speaking out and saying it as it is.
> 
> *SBS takes a controversial stance on family values.
> *
> ...




Tink, it all depends on who delivers the message. When I raised the issue of child exposure to lascivious advertising before a movie I had the moral police here telling me off for being protective, some even seemingly promoting child exploitation. If I had an avatar the made me out to be an apple pie grandmother I'm sure the attitudes would be different.

The SBS brought us Sunnyvale, so it's hardly a bastion of Victorian era morals.

In this instance the SBS is founded on ethnic communication and would probably see its role as pushing traditional boundaries to capture a wider audience. The beige set have always got the ABC, albeit peppered with the F and C bombs masquerading as art and freedom of expression..... the UK channel is probably a better channel again..


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2015)

Tisme said:


> Tink, it all depends on who delivers the message. When I raised the issue of child exposure to lascivious advertising before a movie I had the moral police here telling me off for being protective, some even seemingly promoting child exploitation.




Oh here we go, you just can't help yourself.... Neither can I

Rated M movie= rated M ad. If anything you were irresponsible as a parent exposing your child to a movie above their age range. Then had a whinge about it. And yes I do find that hilarious.
And if anything I would be the debauchery police according to you.


----------



## luutzu (19 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> Oh here we go, you just can't help yourself.... Neither can I
> 
> Rated M movie= rated M ad. If anything you were irresponsible as a parent exposing your child to a movie above their age range. Then had a whinge about it. And yes I do find that hilarious.
> And if anything I would be the debauchery police according to you.





Independence Day Ratings around the world:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/parentalguide

PG or PG-13.

It's an alien-invasion movie, not Lolita or Show Girl or Strip Tease or Basic Instinct right?

Alright, hundreds of millions of people were vaporized (off-screen), but if that golden retriever didn't make it inside the tunnel, it'll be an M rating. And if the movie have a half naked lady mourning or dancing around, it won't be PG that's for sure.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2015)

luutzu said:


> Independence Day Ratings around the world:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/parentalguide
> 
> PG or PG-13.
> ...




Wrong, the ratings have been changed a few times since. It was M when it was released


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2015)

I think this is an appropriate thread for this post.

Pretty soon we won't be able to speak to our intimate advisors (including doctors and lawyers) without the government knowing about it.

Both Labor and the LNP will be last on my voting list if this goes through.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/bradley-our-privacy-is-about-to-be-serially-infringed/6333274


----------



## luutzu (19 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> Wrong, the ratings have been changed a few times since. It was M when it was released




Has the movie changed since its release?

It's the typical lightweight summer popcorn movie you take your kids to. It was, I remembered right, the biggest blockbuster of the year so all kids and teens would go. You make it out like the man took his kids to see, I don't know, American Psycho or Halloween.

Have you seen RoboCop [1987]? An R-rating. You see people being shot to pieces; some dude's face melted when industrial acid poured on him etc. etc. All my friends and I saw it, I spent a summer with my little brother playing it on Ninendo.. there's a bunch toys and products marketed at kids. We saw part two too... don't think anyone ever saw part 3.

Our parents were all OK with RoboCop and Terminator... bring home Playboy and you better hide it below the last draw.

Anyway, I thought we value people's freedom of speech. Parents don't have the right to complaint when their kids are exposed to sexually charged ads before an obviously light alien invasion flick?


----------



## Tisme (19 March 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think this is an appropriate thread for this post.
> 
> Pretty soon we won't be able to speak to our intimate advisors (including doctors and lawyers) without the government knowing about it.
> 
> ...




It is going through and you are culpable because you voted for them. Mean while death cults will merely hide behind firewalls and proxies.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2015)

Tisme said:


> It is going through and you are culpable because you voted for them. .




Was this subject even mentioned before the last election ?

Or is it all part of "Team Australia" ?


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2015)

luutzu said:


> Has the movie changed since its release?
> 
> It's the typical lightweight summer popcorn movie you take your kids to. It was, I remembered right, the biggest blockbuster of the year so all kids and teens would go. You make it out like the man took his kids to see, I don't know, American Psycho or Halloween.
> 
> ...




Mature content = Mature content 
You don't get all pissy when you are going against classification in the first place. He put himself and his kids in that position and now wants to blame bonds. How dare he accuse our national iconic brand. 
I value his right to free speech, doesn't mean I don't think its wrong and funny. 

"YAY a movie about melting faces"
"OH MY GOD an undie ad, my children and I are damaged for life"

Bwahaha Independence day had a stripper scene did you cry about that as well.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think this is an appropriate thread for this post.
> 
> Pretty soon we won't be able to speak to our intimate advisors (including doctors and lawyers) without the government knowing about it.
> 
> ...




Funny how they can both agree on stiffing the general population with this privacy invasion. Seems you are stuffed no matter which way you vote.


----------



## Tisme (19 March 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Was this subject even mentioned before the last election ?
> 
> Or is it all part of "Team Australia" ?




Yeah it's a disgrace we have a formal invasion of privacy...to me it's akin to someone opening my mail before it arrives at my letterbox. The ability of some public servant to manipulate my correspondence for malice, mischief or profit worries me.


----------



## luutzu (19 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> Mature content = Mature content
> You don't get all pissy when you are going against classification in the first place. He put himself and his kids in that position and now wants to blame bonds. How dare he accuse our national iconic brand.
> I value his right to free speech, doesn't mean I don't think its wrong and funny.
> 
> ...






Rate M at first release in Australia, 3 months later it's PG. PG rated since then for BluRay; PG rated pretty much all over the world.

http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?q=independence+day&t=lfc

So ID4 isn't your typical M rated film is it?


But let's say it is for Mature Audiences only, not Parental Guidance.

Say you're a parent who's OK with their kid watching a summer alien-invasion flick (and no, RoboCop was rated R-18+ and has the face melting part)... say you're OK with ID4... are you going to be OK with them watching these ads below?

I like the second lingerie ad... CPR and all.





And the condom ads... educational too.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Was this subject even mentioned before the last election ?
> 
> Or is it all part of "Team Australia" ?




Labor had the internet filter and from memory libs made a fuss over it. Now it seems libs are making an even worse version. Liberal core should be opposing this. 
This is where Turnbull should be kicking up a stink.


----------



## Tink (20 March 2015)

Yes, I know you think similarly as I do on this topic, Tisme, as I said in your post a while back.

What is wrong here is people shouldn't be silenced, especially on a public broadcaster.
We all pay to keep it afloat.
It is suppose to be for all of us, and that goes for the ABC as well.

If Channel 7 and 9 can broadcast it, the SBS have no excuses except for pushing their own agenda.
As the title says, we are losing our freedom of speech.
The lefts morality of social engineering.

This is the ad that was banned.





Tink said:


> *SBS takes a controversial stance on family values.
> *
> _TWO opposing commercials were booked this month on SBS, the broadcaster we pay $287 million a year to make us more civilised.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (20 March 2015)

Tink said:


> Yes, I know you think similarly as I do on this topic, Tisme, as I said in your post a while back.
> 
> What is wrong here is people shouldn't be silenced, especially on a public broadcaster.
> We all pay to keep it afloat.
> ...





We are not alone Tink. I'm pretty sure the rise in religion is a fightback to social engineering that is at odds with our primal instincts. 

Religion is about the only community we are allowed to have these days that isn't intrinsically taxed, licenced, regulated, rezoned, state codified, etc., but it also has its own club rules that I find rather sheepish, sometimes brutal.


----------



## Tisme (20 March 2015)

moXJO you and your compatriot who promoted the idea of children being exposed to sexual advertising will just gave to wear the badges you pinned on yourselves. Sufficed to say you are probably not someone I would leave my grand children with while I went off to fight aliens. 

The idea of aliens coming to earth in a giant spaceship is so ridiculous that even a child would realise the fantasy. 

An advertiser's first task is to convince his audience of product credibility and encapsulate that with messages to create a need..... marketers don't generally make expensive ads for the social good, but as a keystone in consumerism. 

Please don't confuse me as a lone wolf on this. The entire theatre echoed with adults voices disapproving (spontaneously) and I was pleasantly surprised to find out I was not the only father who rang the theatre to complain and I was also surprised to know the theatre had withdrawn the ad....admittedly it was not a theatre chain.


----------



## moXJO (20 March 2015)

luutzu said:


> Rate M at first release in Australia, 3 months later it's PG. PG rated since then for BluRay; PG rated pretty much all over the world.
> 
> 
> So ID4 isn't your typical M rated film is it?
> ...




Luutzu it is his responsibility to check the classification at the time. It was screened as M everything after that point still results as him being in the wrong and blaming others. RATED M Luutzu. Yes, I did find this funny before- but diging out a M rating was just the icing on the cake to tismes whole nam style undie flashback.



> Films and computer games classified M (Mature) contain content of a moderate impact and are recommended for teenagers aged 15 years and over.
> 
> Children under 15 may legally access this material because it is an advisory category. However, M classified films and computer games may include classifiable elements such as violence and nudity of moderate impact that are not recommended for children under 15 years.
> 
> *Parents and guardians may need to find out more about the film or computer game’s specific content, before deciding whether the material is suitable for their child.*




The film was screened under M , got it yet or do I need to say it again. So yes I do agree that taking your kids to a M rated film when you are a uptight irresponsible religious homophobe that tries to shift blame to everyone else is not a good idea. 
Here is the PG rating


> The content is mild in impact.
> 
> The impact of PG (Parental Guidance) classified films and computer games should be no higher than mild, but they may contain content that children find confusing or upsetting and may require the guidance of parents and guardians. They may, for example, contain classifiable elements such as language and themes that are mild in impact.
> *It is not recommended for viewing or playing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians.*





Now I bet they didn’t run the bonds ad under the pg rating and yet PG is still not recommended to those under 15. I think the rating now for the movie is PG13. The rating system has changed a few times over the years.

Yes I would be pissed if I went to a spongebob  G rated movie and those ads came on. Right now there are worse music video clips that are on free to air. No I don't agree with it, but context is everything (childs age, maturity level and underlying tones of ads).

The first batch of ads you showed would all be deemed sexist now good luck getting any of them on in Aust.

Secondly, the movie had a stripper pole dancing in her undies or are we ignoring that. 




Tisme said:


> moXJO you and your compatriot who promoted the idea of children being exposed to sexual advertising will just gave to wear the badges you pinned on yourselves. Sufficed to say you are probably not someone I would leave my grand children with while I went off to fight aliens.
> 
> The idea of aliens coming to earth in a giant spaceship is so ridiculous that even a child would realise the fantasy.
> .




The movie had a stripper pole dancing in her undies
Was rated M 
Full of violence 
And the bonds ad caught you by surprise.
So ignoring movie classification is everyone else's fault is it? 
I have no problem with age appropriate content being restricted, but you went ahead and ignored that M rating.

If you are overly concerned about such things or religiously minded CHECK FIRST. There's this awesome thing called responsibility you should take a spoonful. If I can find out the movie classification 19 years after the fact you could have a lot easier then.

You also went homophobic-redneck style and now trying to allude that I am for child exploitation lol. You are the one who happily exposed your kids to a M rating while expecting a G. Yes everyone who had a whine should have checked beforehand.
Dude I wouldn't let you take my kids to the movies, seems way to traumatic.


----------



## luutzu (20 March 2015)

Alright. So I take it you have never, and would never, let your 8-14 year old watch any of these movies?

Superman Returns - rated M
Man of Steel - rated M
Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy - rated M

Mission Impossible, 1, 2, 3, 4 - rated M
War of the Worlds - rated M


Batman - Keaton's version - is OK at PG
Batman Returns - rated M so no go
Batman and Robin - rated M... you'd want your money back
Batman Forever - rated M... last nail on the franchise coffin


Most Star Wars movies seems PG, but episode 2 - the attack of the clones is M on DVD... so what will your kids do not knowing how bad the second prequel was?

anyway...

Lots of stripping in ID4


----------



## moXJO (20 March 2015)

luutzu said:


> Alright. So I take it you have never, and would never, let your 8-14 year old watch any of these movies?




Luutzu if you choose to let your kids watch any of those movies it is with the knowledge that they might be exposed to subjects not appropriate to children. It is your job to know what maturity level they are at. The ratings are there for those that get butt hurt and offended. Its a pretty simple system that clearly warns about the particular movie.


Seriously you let your kids watch Batman and Robin. You should be locked up for exposing your kids to that brain damaging crap.


----------



## luutzu (20 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> Luutzu if you choose to let your kids watch any of those movies it is with the knowledge that they might be exposed to subjects not appropriate to children. It is your job to know what maturity level they are at. The ratings are there for those that get butt hurt and offended. Its a pretty simple system that clearly warns about the particular movie.
> 
> 
> Seriously you let your kids watch Batman and Robin. You should be locked up for exposing your kids to that brain damaging crap.




The content of the movie is what i'd be responsible for. Not the ads before it.

Batman and Robin is bad, but for other reasons.

Most parents would be OK with their kids watching a superhero/alien invasion movie where there's sanitized, off-screen death and destruction... but would not be OK with undie-clad women moaning and purring. If you want to make that out to be them being hypocritical or irresponsible, then that's your freedom of opinion. 

If your brother or your kids bring their 10 year old over and say the kid love IronMan or Avengers... are you going to turn on those lingerie ads and say it's fair game?


----------



## moXJO (20 March 2015)

luutzu said:


> The content of the movie is what i'd be responsible for. Not the ads before it.
> 
> Batman and Robin is bad, but for other reasons.
> 
> ...




Luutzu M rating stands and is pretty clear. It's not about what you think should happen no matter how much you try and twist. You have the opinion, I'm stating the fact- *M rating*.
So you are pro violence/anti-sex/ anti semi-nudity.
God don't take your kids to the beach in case they get exposed to semi-nudity or shock horror semi-nude gays kissing.


----------



## Tisme (20 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> You also went homophobic-redneck style...




yeah yeah , you were so happy trolling for a reaction back then, you didn't figure you were being played.....and here we are and the piper is looking for payment.


----------



## moXJO (20 March 2015)

Tisme said:


> yeah yeah , you were so happy trolling for a reaction back then, you didn't figure you were being played.....and here we are and the piper is looking for payment.




Lol 
you know I love you Tisme, but in a strictly G rating classification.


----------



## luutzu (20 March 2015)

moXJO said:


> Luutzu M rating stands and is pretty clear. It's not about what you think should happen no matter how much you try and twist. You have the opinion, I'm stating the fact- *M rating*.
> So you are pro violence/anti-sex/ anti semi-nudity.
> God don't take your kids to the beach in case they get exposed to semi-nudity or shock horror semi-nude gays kissing.




again, ID4's M rating was changed 3 months later by the same Australian board. And even if they didn't, it is obvious to all those who ever go to the movies that it's a sci-fi, popcorn flick - not a Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan's take on alien invasions.

Fact is, I'd bet that you wouldn't mind having this and those other superhero M-rated movies lying around your house and any kids or relo visiting are free to watch it. But your Playboy and Victoria Secret's collection are hidden away and you'd be horrified if those same kids stumbled across it.

too much time on my hand man.


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2015)

Malaysia, a Muslim country, is going down the Brunei path

Political parties are trying to out-do each

Who needs a time machine when you have religion...




> *The perils of speaking out against Islamic law in Malaysia*​
> A satirical video has exposed the sensitivity over Islamic law in Malaysia - as well as the limits of online speech in the country.
> 
> It was supposed to be a light-hearted poke at proposals to expand Islamic law in one state in Malaysia. But a video starring journalist Aisyah Tajuddin resulted in death and rape threats along with a police investigation.
> ...




http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-32089787​


----------



## noco (6 April 2015)

Pauline Hanson was being interviewed on Channel 7 and she was expressing her views on Islam, something  many people agree upon....For some unknown reason the sound was cut off.....whether it was a station defect or whether she was stopped by Channel 7 for reasons only known to them, we may never know....Maybe she was too out spoken and in this case freedom of speech was prevented.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...i-islam-protests/story-fnihslxi-1227291984380


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 April 2015)

noco said:


> Pauline Hanson was being interviewed on Channel 7 and she was expressing her views on Islam, something  many people agree upon....For some unknown reason the sound was cut off.....whether it was a station defect or whether she was stopped by Channel 7 for reasons only known to them, we may never know....Maybe she was too out spoken and in this case freedom of speech was prevented.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...i-islam-protests/story-fnihslxi-1227291984380




Firstly for the record, may I say that I believe PHanson to be a stubbie short of a carton.

Nonetheless, the media environment now is fraught with polarisation, and any comment, anywhere, may lead one to be vilified as either a Far-Left or a Far-Right Nutjob.

I believe in Free Speech and the Far Left on the weekend were a disgrace, objecting to the masturbatory antics of the Far Right. Masturbation is a right, fought for by Australians over many years.

Why resort to violence?

gg


----------



## moXJO (7 April 2015)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Firstly for the record, may I say that I believe PHanson to be a stubbie short of a carton.
> 
> Nonetheless, the media environment now is fraught with polarisation, and any comment, anywhere, may lead one to be vilified as either a Far-Left or a Far-Right Nutjob.
> 
> ...




That rally on both sides was a mess. Stormfront(white supremacists group) had a field day with recruiting from reclaim Australia supporters. And from what I'm hearing a Jewish advocacy group on facebook is making claims that it is in contact with the organizers of the rally and offers financial help to any of the reclaim protesters who are arrested and accused of being a neo nazi. No idea if it is true or not.

The left lost the PR war badly and were outnumbered despite reports. If police lost control the left would have been spanked badly. Right now Stormfront is interested in building numbers and hijacking the debate. Hopefully these rallies are not held to often.


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2015)

I was in Hay street mall (WA) the other weekend when "not in my name" protesters marched through.

Old Anglo's mostly, church groups must have been a couple of thousand. 

I was waiting outside Jeans West wife inside shopping.

Street mainly full of Asians and other ethic groups not many Anglos like me or the protesters.

Any way a guy started to rant to me (I always attract them) how they should look around we are not racist I had to agree as I slid sideways out of rant view.

Interesting that the ethics (Asians etc)looked on with bemusement.


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2015)

IFocus said:


> I was in Hay street mall (WA) the other weekend when "not in my name" protesters marched through.
> 
> Old Anglo's mostly, church groups must have been a couple of thousand.
> 
> ...





Let's be honest, their rants aren't much different, to your calling Abbott "the mad monk".

Maybe they see something in you, that attracts them.


----------



## Tink (11 April 2015)

Debate over council‘s non-Muslim hijab move

_A local Victorian Council, City of Greater Dandenong, encourages non Muslim women to wear hijabs as part of social experiment. _

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...s=10153192274552192&fb_action_types=og.shares


I wonder if this was The Greens.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Debate over council‘s non-Muslim hijab move
> 
> _A local Victorian Council, City of Greater Dandenong, encourages non Muslim women to wear hijabs as part of social experiment. _
> 
> ...




I thought you would be pro hijab, given your religion has a tradition of wearing them eg nuns where them.

also your bible clearly states that women should cover their head. Maybe that's one of the parts you choose to ignore.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

Tink, let me guess, you only have a problem with one of these religious head dress.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> View attachment 62243
> 
> 
> Tink, let me guess, you only have a problem with one of these religious head dress.




It's a lot easier for a nun to leave the Catholic church than it is for women to leave the Islamic religion.


----------



## Tink (11 April 2015)

All believers do not wear nuns outfits, VC.

I don't care if they wear hijabs, I just think its unusual, someone asking another person to try it for a few hours to see how it feels.

I don't remember any one else ever doing that in other faiths.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2015)

Tink said:


> All believers do not wear nuns outfits, VC.
> 
> I don't care if they wear hijabs, I just think its unusual, someone asking another person to try it for a few hours to see how it feels.
> 
> I don't remember any one else ever doing that in other faiths.




Maybe someone should suggest that Muslim women don't wear hijabs in public for a while to see how that feels.


----------



## Tink (11 April 2015)

As I said, it doesn't bother me about the hijab, rather that, than just the eyes showing.

Buddhists etc, they all dress in their own way, and many other faiths, no one has ever said anything.

I think this creates more problems when they single themselves out as being the victim.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe someone should suggest that Muslim women don't wear hijabs in public for a while to see how that feels.




I think that gets suggested a lot. a lot of people are even asking for burkas and hijabs to be banned, no one ever suggests banning catholic veils though.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

Tink said:


> All believers do not wear nuns outfits, VC.
> 
> I don't care if they wear hijabs, I just think its unusual, someone asking another person to try it for a few hours to see how it feels.
> 
> I don't remember any one else ever doing that in other faiths.




Not all muslims wear hijabs either.

some muslims ignore those commandments, just as a lot of Christian women ignore the biblical commandments for them to wear a head covering.

The bible doesn't say only Nuns should cover their head, it says women. 

Don't you think anyone has suggested muslim women should try not wearing head dress?

There are actually groups campaigning to ban muslim head dress.


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a lot easier for a nun to leave the Catholic church than it is for women to leave the Islamic religion.




How so, many of them believe that eternal hell fire awaits people that abandon the faith.


----------



## explod (11 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Not all muslims wear hijabs either.
> 
> some muslims ignore those commandments, just as a lot of Christian women ignore the biblical commandments for them to wear a head covering.
> 
> ...




Thos rules on headbands evolved in the middle ages.   Such rules were not part of the Jesus teachings. 

As with the tall churchspire,  the heavenly type space with stained glass windows and the crixiform,  the headbands and coverings were another part of the system to control the followers.   In particular the power of men over women.  Unfortunately the women are so programmed and indoctrinated that under Gods hand they fight for the burkar. 

These leaders are the ones that will ultimately burn in hell,  if in fact there is one. 

I know two ex Catholic Priests and a former Nun who saw through the witch doctor and are now athiests.


----------



## Tink (11 April 2015)

So, explod, why do the Greens dislike Christianity, yet this country was built on their principles.

The Greens website has photos of Muslims as Australian women.

What is that all about?


----------



## Value Collector (11 April 2015)

explod said:


> Thos rules on headbands evolved in the middle ages.   Such rules were not part of the Jesus teachings.




Wrong, both the old and New Testament mention head coverings. Check out Corinthians 11:15

just like the muslims rules against pork (yes, the bible outlaws pork also), the rules about women covering their head were inspired by the bible.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

Tink said:


> The Greens website has photos of Muslims as Australian women.
> 
> What is that all about?




so muslims can't be Australian?

Australia is made up of many races and creeds.

would you be upset with the greens website if it showed a person of Asian decent as an Australian? Do you believe only people of European decent are true Aussies?

You remind me a bit of my grandmother, who has trouble accepting that a person of asian appearance is Australian, even if they are third generation, "they just don't look like an aussie" she said.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

The coloured folks are only Aussies by law, the true blue Aussies are Aussies that came from Europe - and Europeans with white skin, not the olive type or curly greasy hair either. 

To be fair though, I am sometime surprised that my brother in law and my siblings don't know much about Vietnam at all. They look asian but that's about as Asian as they get - Vietnam is just one of those country they might visit one day for holiday.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2015)

I will wait for The Greens to answer that, before I give my reply, if explod wants to, being a Greens member.

For your information, VC, I treat all people the same, so get off your PC bandwagon, it doesn't work with me anymore.

The Greens are the masters of silencing the people.

Good for your grandmother, she can say whatever she likes.
We live in a free country where people are allowed to express their thoughts.

I hope you listen to her stories, as these elderly have a lot of wisdom and knowledge to share.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How so, many of them believe that eternal hell fire awaits people that abandon the faith.




And Muslims are threatened or killed when they try to leave Islam, but people leave the Catholic church all the time without being intimidated later on.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> T
> 
> To be fair though, I am sometime surprised that my brother in law and my siblings don't know much about Vietnam at all. They look asian but that's about as Asian as they get - Vietnam is just one of those country they might visit one day for holiday.




It's the same with most migrants. There are family ties in the "old Country" that people want to catch up with sometimes, but otherwise most had good reasons for leaving in the first place and don't want to go back.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2015)

Agree with both your posts, Rumpole.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Good for your grandmother, she can say whatever she likes.
> We live in a free country where people are allowed to express their thoughts.
> 
> I hope you listen to her stories, as these elderly have a lot of wisdom and knowledge to share.




Offcourse she has the right to say what she likes, and I have the right to point of to her that not only are some of her beliefs factually incorrect, but they are also unfair and some what immoral.

I love my grandmother, and probably speak to her more than any other of her grandchildren, and have many conversations about the past and how things were, but when she gets a bit racist, I point it out. 

I still don't get what you meant by your comment about not understanding why the greens see muslims as australians, I know you are saying you treat everyone the same, but that comment makes me think you don't see muslims or perhaps groups of other origins as real australians.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And Muslims are threatened or killed when they try to leave Islam, but people leave the Catholic church all the time without being intimidated later on.




Yes some muslims are threatened or killed, some aren't, some christian groups also threaten violence also, though in the developed world less so now.

how ever, I would argue that the  threat of eternal punishment for infinity in hell, is far worse than any temporary punishment on this earth.

Hence people that have been lied to from birth and hold genuine strong religious beliefs as a result, are captives of their faith, So a devoted nun is being obsessed, even if it seem voluntary.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's the same with most migrants. There are family ties in the "old Country" that people want to catch up with sometimes, but otherwise most had good reasons for leaving in the first place and don't want to go back.




That's not the point of the discussion, the point is some people look at a person of Asian appearance ( or in rinks case a person of Islamic faith)and think they are not real australians just because of the colour of their skin (or head dress), regardless of the family background and how many generations they have lived here.

Asians have been migrating here since before the gold rush, muslims almost as long, So some family history's date back 6 or 7 generations, to say they are not aussie is just stupid.

But also, the fact that they don't want to go back to the country they migrated from means nothing, because you could say the same with the early settlers who chose to leave the hardships of 1800's industrial England, or post war Germany, or the famines in Ireland. 

Tink would probably have no issues accepting a person who was born in sydney, but who's grandparents moved here after after ww2 as being a 100% australian, but if the person wears a hijab, suddenly she has doubts, but a nuns veil would be fine. How is that not silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2015)

> That's not the point of the discussion, the point is some people look at a person of Asian appearance ( or in rinks case a person of Islamic faith)and think they are not real australians just because of the colour of their skin (or head dress), regardless of the family background and how many generations they have lived here.




I think that it is the case that a lot of migrants are not "true" Australians, in the sense that if war broke out and they were being asked to fight for this country they would pack up their bags and go back to where they came from. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, a lot of Australian ex pats living in the US or Britain would probably do the same.

But f you take up citizenship of another country, then you are expected to be loyal to your adopted country. I doubt if the people now fighting for ISIS or the people who influence them have any concept of national loyalty. We only find out who is loyal when the chips are down, and people are asked to put their lives on the line for their country.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think that it is the case that a lot of migrants are not "true" Australians, in the sense that if war broke out and they were being asked to fight for this country they would pack up their bags and go back to where they came from. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, a lot of Australian ex pats living in the US or Britain would probably do the same.
> 
> But f you take up citizenship of another country, then you are expected to be loyal to your adopted country. I doubt if the people now fighting for ISIS or the people who influence them have any concept of national loyalty. We only find out who is loyal when the chips are down, and people are asked to put their lives on the line for their country.




I don't think that's true.

You will always have people who will pack their bags, or who stay put but find ways to keep their kids out of real danger... and they tend to be people with a lot of money and influence... more so than migrants or the working class who got no cash and no connection to go anywhere.

What makes a person loyal to a country anyway? Not race or religion... but whether or not the country is worth saving to them... does the country and the government benefit them or not; does the country and the people see them as one of their own. The moment the gov't doesn't care, make policies that marginalise them and benefits the rich or the favoured race... the neglected will not care and will not fight.. .and if they do, it will be against the gov't. Hence you have civil wars, rebellions and general chaos.

So it's not about migrants or new or old arrivals. People are self serving. And it's the poor and the new migrants that have less choice and more heart to fight for it.

Look at China... we'd probably all think they're just the one people... but they're not. There's the 8 to 10 major states fighting each other for 500 years until Chin united them and committed mass genocide and forced assimilation and standardisation on the rest... then Han took over and expanded... and they were just about 1/3 their current size. There's probably about 100 different ethnic groups in China today but they all look the same, haha.

But if you pick on the Han majority or the Manchurian... the other Chinese wouldn't just stand around and let it happen. I'm pretty sure the same for Australians here... the White as well as the coloured folks.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2015)

> What makes a person loyal to a country anyway?




I'm reminded of the old saying

"always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse"

Hillaire Belloc


----------



## bellenuit (12 April 2015)

*South African author ZP Dala has been taken to a mental institution in reprisal for her comments about Salman Rushdie*

http://bookslive.co.za/blog/2015/04...refusing-to-renounce-salman-rushdie-comments/


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think that it is the case that a lot of migrants are not "true" Australians, in the sense that if war broke out and they were being asked to fight for this country they would pack up their bags and go back to where they came from. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, a lot of Australian ex pats living in the US or Britain would probably do the same.
> 
> But f you take up citizenship of another country, then you are expected to be loyal to your adopted country. I doubt if the people now fighting for ISIS or the people who influence them have any concept of national loyalty. We only find out who is loyal when the chips are down, and people are asked to put their lives on the line for their country.




As a soldier who has served over seas myself, I can tell you that you are wrong. My parents migrated here from New Zealand 2 years before I was born, and both myself who was born here and my sibling who was born in NZ have served ( We are of Anglo appearance though, so perhaps tink classes us as true aussies, if we were from Japan maybe she wouldn't).

While I served I served along many people from migrant families, even in the Sas and other special operations groups there are members who were not born in Australia.

I dont think race or where your parents were born is a deciding factor.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2015)

Can migrant families serve a nation at time of war?

if anyone doubts their ability read a bit about Billy Sing, a man of chinese decent who had to lie about his race, while recruiters turned a blind eye because of his rifle skills, to get to Galipoli, and became a renowned sniper, saving many Australian lives.

http://http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sing



> .   William Edward 'Billy' Sing, DCM (2 March 1886 – 19 May 1943) was a part Chinese Australian soldier who served in the Australian Imperial Force during World War I, best known as a sniper during the Gallipoli Campaign.[1][2][3][4][a] He took at least 150 confirmed kills during that campaign, and may have had over 200 kills in total.[3][4] One contemporary estimate put his tally at close to 300 kills.[5] Towards the end of the war, Sing married a Scottish woman, but the relationship did not last long.[2] Following work in sheep farming and gold mining, he died in relative poverty and obscurity in Brisbane during World War II.[2][6]




Migrants have been among Australian troops in probably every conflict in our history.


----------



## explod (12 April 2015)

Tink said:


> The Greens are the masters of silencing the people.
> 
> .




Hi Tink,  would you care to provide an explanation with some examples to back this statement.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm reminded of the old saying
> 
> "always keep tight hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse"
> 
> Hillaire Belloc




Just read that poem. I think I know what you mean... that's me for barely passing General English.
Saw links to Robert Frost's A Road Less Travel and that other William Henley's Invictus... good stuff.

---
reminds me of the Bush vs Kerry election where Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney, one went AWOL serving in the National Guards and the other took leave to "study" during the Vietnam War.. both call Kerry a traitor for having gone on a few tours in Vietnam then speak out against it... and both became president, passing the Patriot Act... whose author and lead counsel was a Vietnamese American.

Kinda funny when you think about it.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As a soldier who has served over seas myself, I can tell you that you are wrong. My parents migrated here from New Zealand 2 years before I was born, and both myself who was born here and my sibling who was born in NZ have served ( We are of Anglo appearance though, so perhaps tink classes us as true aussies, if we were from Japan maybe she wouldn't).
> 
> While I served I served along many people from migrant families, even in the Sas and other special operations groups there are members who were not born in Australia.
> 
> I dont think race or where your parents were born is a deciding factor.




You're not SAS are you?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2015)

> Migrants have been among Australian troops in probably every conflict in our history.




I have no doubt about that, but I wonder how many Muslims are serving with the Australian Armed forces fighting against ISIS, and how many would suddenly become "conscientious objectors" if conscription were re-introduced to fight against a Muslim enemy.

Using New Zealanders as an example in this case is pretty thin as you are not burdened with a religious philosophy that trumps national loyalty.

And I also wonder how comfortable you would be serving alongside Muslims given the number of Coalition troops killed by renegades they were supposed to be training.


----------



## Tink (12 April 2015)

Hi explod,

I did ask you this -


Tink said:


> So, explod, why do the Greens dislike Christianity, yet this country was built on their principles.
> 
> The Greens website has photos of Muslims as Australian women.
> 
> What is that all about?




This is where this conversation has come from, and also about the hijab, and the Muslims asking that people understand how they feel, asking others to wear it.
As I said, I don't remember any other faith asking the same, be it buddhists etc, we all just moved along enjoying the country we live in.

VC, I already said, I treat all people the same, so I appreciate you not turning it around.

I don't need your PC rules to tell me how to be with people, we grew up with Christian principles, what this country was built on. 
You keep forgetting that.

Yes, it does concern me, seeing special holidays like Christmas and Easter that are on our Christian calendar being compromised, because of PC, and people trying to change the fabric of our society.

As the title says, The West has lost its freedom of speech


----------



## cynic (12 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> The coloured folks are only Aussies by law, the true blue Aussies are Aussies that came from Europe - and Europeans with white skin, not the olive type or curly greasy hair either.
> 
> To be fair though, I am sometime surprised that my brother in law and my siblings don't know much about Vietnam at all. They look asian but that's about as Asian as they get - Vietnam is just one of those country they might visit one day for holiday.




Actually, I don't find that terribly surprising. Whilst I'm Australian born, I know precious little about my father and grandmother's countries of birth.

Recently I was rather amused to observe the behaviour of a waitress during a visit to an oriental restaurant. 

Patrons of oriental appearance were being greeted in a Chinese dialect, and those of Western appearance were greeted in English.

One "celestial" gentleman, upon receiving the Chinese greeting, replied in Australian accented English: "I'm sorry, but I don't speak Chinese."

That's the great thing about racism! It's non discriminatory! It can manifest in any race!


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Hi explod,
> 
> I did ask you this -
> 
> ...





We took our kids to the cheaper version of the Easter Show at Moore Park today and I saw plenty of Arabs and Indians and pacific islanders and Aussies    I don't think most people care about Holy Days... for most of us it's just an excuse to take time off work and enjoy time with the family.

If I'm a Muslim or someone who doesn't practice Christianity... I'd love all the Christian holidays because it meant I get to actually not pray or worship or anything but just relax, go out to my traditional restaurants and they'd be open.

Anyway, with the chocolates and easter eggs and the xmas themes during these seasons all over the place, even at shopping centres and supermarkets in dominantly Muslim suburbs.. I just don't know where these claims about PC, dislike for Christianity or Christians must quiet down comes from.

---

Regarding the article, I thought it was a project two high schoolers came up with - hardly Muslims forcing "us" to to do anything.

It's a good idea, but 3 hours might not be enough... maybe 24 hours or a week... to let others know that just because you wear a hijab or a burqa does not mean you're a terrorist. Will also let people experience the kind of looks they get and maybe the verbal abuse Muslims sometimes get.

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes often make us better people.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2015)

cynic said:


> Actually, I don't find that terribly surprising. Whilst I'm Australian born, I know precious little about my father and grandmother's countries of birth.
> 
> Recently I was rather amused to observe the behaviour of a waitress during a visit to an oriental restaurant.
> 
> ...




yea, it happens. Sometime it's not racism though, just stereotypes - something we all do to not think too much about everything and everyone we meet.

My wife's friend recently got it a bit worse than you though... she married a Caucasian and they meet up with a female Caucasian friend. She was holding their 6 months old etc. and the waitress turn to the friend, saying how handsome her kid was, how old is he etc. Not everyday you're mistaken for a maid.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> You're not SAS are you?




No, but my unit was a special operations unit that worked very closely with the SAS, pretty much every SAS patrol in Afganistan had members of my unit attached, my unit is called the SOER (special operations engineer regiment) I am not there any more though.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Using New Zealanders as an example in this case is pretty thin as you are not burdened with a religious philosophy that trumps national loyalty.
> 
> And I also wonder how comfortable you would be serving alongside Muslims given the number of Coalition troops killed by renegades they were supposed to be training.




Pick any race you want, and you will find them in the Australian defence force.

Australian forces have trained and fought along side many muslims, in both Iraq and Afganistan, and I have had members of my unit who although we're pretty none religious, they were from islamic backgrounds and wounldnt drink alcohol.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Yes, it does concern me, seeing special holidays like Christmas and Easter that are on our Christian calendar being compromised, because of PC, and people trying to change the fabric of our society.
> 
> As the title says, The West has lost its freedom of speech




No one is stopping you celebrating your religious traditions in any way you want.

Can you give me an example of a single time some one has stopped you celebrating your "special holidays"?


----------



## Tink (13 April 2015)

What are they teaching in public schools, Ramadan, no Easter?
Correct me if I am wrong.

I have already said my part in this forum.

The PC brigade are destroying this fine country, in my view.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2015)

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it ain't Australian ....just saying


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

Tink said:


> What are they teaching in public schools, Ramadan, no Easter?
> Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> I have already said my part in this forum.
> ...




Firstly, even if they did stop teaching anything about the religious holidays, how is that stopping your family celebrating them?

but, personally I feel if you want to include lessons on the Christian holidays, you have a responsibility to include lessons on a broad range of other religious traditions of other faiths.

I don't know what they are doing in schools at the moment, but I am guessing some schools teach Easter other Ramadan, I am against any single religion being taught as fact or being given special privilege.

I am fine with children being taught about the various different religious traditions as long as the cover a broad cross section of the faiths out there, and are not teaching them as fact,


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it ain't Australian ....just saying




In my opinion, the hard working chinese guy running my local chinese resturant, is more Australian than the Bogans with the "Aussie pride" stickers on their Commodores, doing burn outs and throwing rubbish out the window.

If you take a look at our history, Australia has been built by generations of immigrants from all over the world.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If you take a look at our history, Australia has been built by generations of immigrants from all over the world.




No one is arguing that, but times have changed from the diligent Italians and Greeks with their market gardens and milkbars, the Brits and the Chinese miners.

There is a growing feeling that the pull factors to this country for an increasing number of migrants are the social welfare benefits as well as the desire of some people on the left of politics to try and portray us as a "Kumbayah" society that is prepared to dilute our traditional roots with an ever increasing nanny state towards anyone who wants to come here regardless of what sort of contribution they make to the country.

The aforementioned hardworking migrants (including Vietnamese for luutzu), had far less of a social security net, but made up for it by working very hard and deservedly have a high reputation in the community. Sadly the same cannot be said for a segment of later arrivals who frequent Centrelink and seem to think that the rest of us owe them a living.


----------



## Hodgie (13 April 2015)

From a different perspective, my aunt's partner of 15 years identifies as having Muslim beliefs and has come here from Turkey a long time ago. He is however an Australian citizen and works with the QLD police force, contributing to our society while offering the community protection and security as part of his occupation.

On the note of Christian holidays, he celebrates Christmas like the rest of us in the family. He even dressed up as Santa one year to entertain the young ones. It's interesting to note that he does not force any of the other family members to take part in anything related to his religion while also willing to celebrate all the typical Christian holidays with the rest of us (although it is more about having the day off work rather than any religious aspect).

I would definitely consider my aunt's partner as an upstanding moral person as well as an Australian which we are lucky to have in our community. He just happens to hold religious beliefs that are non-Christian.

He is as disgusted by the actions of the likes of groups like ISIS as much as anyone else I know. As with most modern Christians, he is also able to separate the outdated and barbaric preaching in the religious texts he follows.

He does however have to put up with a lot of unjustified derogatory comments from other white Australians because of where he has come from and which religious views he holds. 

I can completely understand how people like him can see that much of the western world really have no idea what they are talking about and treat people unfairly because of 1 aspect of a person's identity.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The aforementioned hardworking migrants (including Vietnamese for luutzu), had far less of a social security net, but made up for it by working very hard and deservedly have a high reputation in the community.




It didn't stop people at the time calling them wogs, crouts or gooks though, and there was plenty of racist propaganda against each new group that arrived, blaming them for the ills of society at the time, and making slippery slope arguments.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

Hodgie said:


> He even dressed up as Santa one year to entertain the young ones. It's interesting to note that he does not force any of the other family members to take part in anything related to his religion while also willing to celebrate all the typical Christian holidays with the rest of us (although it is more about having the day off work rather than any religious aspect).




He sounds like a "Top Aussie Bloke" to me.

About the holidays being "Christian", Modern Aussie Christmas celebrations are not really Christian anymore, out of all the various Christmas day celebrations at with my family, family friends, Inlaws, neighbors and all the Christmas parties I have attended, I honestly can not remember a single time when Jesus was mentioned. 

Lots of talk of Santa, elves and reindeer and probably more talk of beer's wine and prawns.

I am an atheist, but I celebrate Christmas, because to me it's never been a Christian thing. It's just a great excuse to have a party and some time off at the end of the year, If the Christ story never existed, we would just latch onto another arbitrary calendar date to celebrate.

A lot of Churchs have even stopped doing Christmas mass


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2015)

I think many of the Chinese were kicked out of OZ when it became apparent the wealth was being sent to families in China....and... they plssed off the miners by sorting through the tailings?

Migration was generally based on trades and skills. To find out newbs are arriving and gaining welfare to fund fifth columnist movements and airfares to a conflict in a foreign land is not in our best interest, I feel.

It is true that hard working Armenians, Afghans, Yugoslavs, rolled up their sleeves in the post federation years, but I not sure the present lot aren't being funnelled into public service jobs and the dole queue? 

I'm not sure I agree that ones ethnicity is good indicator of repeating the good of ones predecessors either. But I do know that an indolent, non industrial society will probably see our welfare society as manna from heaven. Our roots are European/British ethic; empire building and all that industry that goes with it, rather than pitching tents, building mud brick huts, slavishly reading a fairytale book and basically  doing zip all day with idle hands and the Devil more than happy to use those hands.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It didn't stop people at the time calling them wogs, crouts or gooks though, and there was plenty of racist propaganda against each new group that arrived, blaming them for the ills of society at the time, and making slippery slope arguments.
> 
> View attachment 62249




That's not even an Australian poster.


----------



## luutzu (13 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's not even an Australian poster.







Years ago I went to Oberon, some place way past the Blue Mountains, and while walking through the town centre I noticed two little girls just staring at me with that "what a strange looking fella" look. The same kind of look I had when I first saw hairy white people. 

Anyway, I like driving through the countrysides... people give you a two finger wave. Here in the city...


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's not even an Australian poster.




Plenty of Australian versions, If you think we have a history of welcoming all those hard working groups research the white Australia policy or the lambing flat riots.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Plenty of Australian versions, If you think we have a history of welcoming all those hard working groups research the white Australia policy or the lambing flat riots.
> 
> View attachment 62251




Ancient history. People can appreciate other ethnic groups who work hard, but if you point out some groups that are not as industrious, the old racism strawman is unpacked.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ancient history. People can appreciate other ethnic groups who work hard, but if you point out some groups that are not as industrious, the old racism strawman is unpacked.




It's not Ancient history, its a continuing trend through out history, every new wave of migrants is met with resistance and often racism.

If they are hard working groups, they are charged with "Taking Aussie jobs" or if you can find unemployed among the group we label the whole group welfare scum, we look back fondly on the new arrivals in later years, many people are willing to admit the benefits to Australia the Greeks and Italian migrations had, But at the time they are met with racism.


----------



## luutzu (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think many of the Chinese were kicked out of OZ when it became apparent the wealth was being sent to families in China....and... they plssed off the miners by sorting through the tailings?
> 
> Migration was generally based on trades and skills. To find out newbs are arriving and gaining welfare to fund fifth columnist movements and airfares to a conflict in a foreign land is not in our best interest, I feel.
> 
> ...




Social welfare is there for those Australians who need it, just most who do need it are often recent migrants and refugees, hence giving the impression that the new arrivals are here just to get on the welfare system, or welfare is only for them.

What you're saying about idle hands and such... I've heard from political scientists lecturing about how such ideas are propagated to demonise and then 'justifiably' cut such programmes. That and gov't taking on a bunch of debt... with high level of debt, a group of mainly ethnic or otherwise minority being seen as lazy, disloyal or just scamming the kindness of the hardworking masses, and everything goes.

Then steps in the big corporations and industrialists... they are obviously contributing more to society because one, they're rich so 'obviously' would never ever need gov't handouts (like those bailouts on Wall Street, or other bailout here in Australia - Holden etc.)... and being rich and never needing help, they in turn want to help rebuild (insert country) just the tax system are not 'competitive' - so tax cuts please; or that gov't enterprises are not efficient - so sell it off please... 

So in cutting the measly social welfare pay that literally mean the difference between a poor family having enough food or not, the gov't save a few bucks. In cutting taxes on the rich and corporations, the gov't get to stay in power because the poor are too busy working a couple of jobs to really care for politics... and since there are more unskilled and desperate labour out there, corporations make more profits by exploiting that too.

The gov't also gain in other ways with a poor, hungry and desperate masses... there are fingers to point to others among them new arrivals, and in being too busy and too desperate to put food on the table they will have no time to question or protest or march down the streets against foreign wars and or pollution or industrial waste or cuts in social programmes for "those other migrants".

This is what has been happening in the US since the Vietnam War, and ramp up under Reagan. Capitalists do what they do best and exploit loopholes and people where they can; and gov't does likes it too because they not want any organised masses of idle hands marching on their capital demanding an end to war, or social equality and equal rights or environmental protections.


So you got a guy like Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, earning some $70million a year... whose bank and fellow bankers got bailed out by US taxpayers to the tune of $860 billions and whose gov't guarantee all debt and obligations to keep their firms afloat... you got a guy like that complaining that those on minimum wage are having it too good. 

So a guy that earns some hundreds of thousand per hour, whose job and business would have gone bust without gov't welfare, telling us those earning $8 an hour or those on food stamp and welfare shouldn't be because it breeds dependence and is the root of social ills. And not too many people thought wtf.

Australia doesn't seem to be where the US is yet. But it will get here soon enough... a bit like netflix and broadband internet. You can see it in the repeal of the carbon tax and the mining tax... losing the gov't truck loads of revenues and now there's this dog and pony show about BHP and RIO dodging more tax through Singapore.

After the public is thoroughly convinced that gov't is also after the big boys, it'll be the turn of those welfare cheats, scholar wannabes and green environmentalists who dare put future generations survival ahead of profit. The big boys got money, politicians and good lawyers... the people got... got Murdoch's media so they'll be 'right.


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2015)

Yeah, but I don't want to see tax payer's money going to slackers and bludgers who would rather appease a sky fairy than pitch in and have a crack at earning a living.

If the govt goes on the attack with the poor of our society, there are sufficient poor with a vote to change that govt. But I understand your lack of social conscience in some of our politicians.


----------



## luutzu (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah, but I don't want to see tax payer's money going to slackers and bludgers who would rather appease a sky fairy than pitch in and have a crack at earning a living.
> 
> If the govt goes on the attack with the poor of our society, there are sufficient poor with a vote to change that govt. But I understand your lack of social conscience in some of our politicians.




Nobody wants their tax dollars going to slackers and scammers, and I am sure there are cases where that does happen. But with the work for the dole and other safeguards in place, such crimes and abuse are not as widespread as it might seem from the papers.

And if you're referring to potential terrorists living off the dole, pray all day and plan all night for our destruction... I doubt that is ever the case. Terrorists, like all nasty criminals, are often your best neighbours and most law abiding citizens... they're the ones with real front jobs, pay and file all their taxes on time, and never call attention to themselves until they need to carry out their plans - like all those 911 terrorists did.

But like all solutions, especially ones that involves millions of cases... there are abuse and crimes in the system, we all know there have to be... but should we just cut it all off and deny everyone assistance or should we find ways to prevent abuse and bear the costs until it's minimised or eradicated because the program benefits much more those who genuinely needs it and deserves it.

Not only does helping your less fortunate citizens good for that national spirit, helping those temporarily down on their luck makes great economic sense. One is we help prevent further slide into poverty, illness and petty crimes... maybe help the family stay united with parents and children learning that in our society we look out for each other.. and who knows, those kids might grow up, do some useful things and remember things.

But if we're to deny the cheats and the terrorists from welfare by ending it completely... there's a recent case in the US where the father of six kids kill himself and all the kids because his marriage broke down, the wife left and tried as he did he couldn't put enough food on the table.

Contrast that to the $860 billion bailout, the further hundreds billion extra of practically zero interest loans to the wall street banks... all in hope that they start lending to small businesses or giving the little guys a bit of breathing room (so it's claimed)... Then those guys don't lend, gave themselves big bonuses with taxpayer's cash... and kick out default owners, leaving empty houses to rot and people homeless.


Yea there's a handful of politicians who make noise about it, who actually do care for the masses.. but, you know, money talks softly but people are all ears.

---

To Australia... The GP and uni fee hike don't fly... mainly because the rich also get sick and also send their kids to uni. So a rethink and the first to get it next are the Aborigines who "choose" to live in the wilderness for no good reason right? So why should taxpayers have to put up with that. 

Then this show of cracking down on big corporations tax issues... I read the ATO is so serious about it they send a few case officers to about ten big corporations to audit. The other hundreds or so seems clean.

Then there's raising the GST and lowering corporate tax. So lower tax means higher corporate earnings, means higher profit for owners and shareholders, bigger bonuses for executives and management... and higher tax on spending will do wonders to household's budget.


So the West is losing its freedom of speech... but it's not from Muslims or the PC police or the Greens and weed smoking hippies.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2015)

> And if you're referring to potential terrorists living off the dole, pray all day and plan all night for our destruction... I doubt that is ever the case. Terrorists, like all nasty criminals, are often your best neighbours and most law abiding citizens... they're the ones with real front jobs, pay and file all their taxes on time, and never call attention to themselves until they need to carry out their plans - like all those 911 terrorists did.




You obviously haven't read about the Lindt Cafe lunatic.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...onis-named-as-man-behind-sydney-siege/5969246


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah, but I don't want to see tax payer's money going to slackers and bludgers who would rather appease a sky fairy than pitch in and have a crack at earning a living.
> 
> If the govt goes on the attack with the poor of our society, there are sufficient poor with a vote to change that govt. But I understand your lack of social conscience in some of our politicians.




Some industries in Australia are forced to import labour because Aussies don't want to work, you won't find a shortage of true blue aussie bogans at the centre link office who rather drink Vb all day than get a job.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Some industries in Australia are forced to import labour because Aussies don't want to work, you won't find a shortage of true blue aussie bogans at the centre link office who rather drink Vb all day than get a job.




Yes there are Aussie bogans around, and there are also employers who ignore our laws, pay workers under award payments and ignore safety rules. Those employers should be cracked down on , and I don't believe they are being so with sufficient force at present.


----------



## luutzu (14 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You obviously haven't read about the Lindt Cafe lunatic.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...onis-named-as-man-behind-sydney-siege/5969246




I read about it... If we define terrorism as violence carried out for political purposes or for a political cause... I don't think that qualifies.

Just saw some doco about Australia during the Great Depression. Very similar to what happened in the US... civil unrest, almost a communist revolution... So I don't think CentreLink will ever be cut... not because we care for the poor, just we'd rather not have a revolution.

Regarding nationalism, patriotism, loyalty... The American colonies revolted against their King because they don't like to be taxed - not because of religion or race; We Australian stuck around for a while longer, went to fight for the mother country all the way up to WW2 when we found that when the proverbial hits the fan we'd better grow up and fend for ourselves.

So talks about loyalty and patriotism because of blood and religion doesn't really hold up when it comes to the crunch. In the end, people will be loyal, will defend the country and the land because that country and that land is now their home, the home of their children... that they'd sacrifice so that their family and their people can survive. You make policies that demonise them or does not serve them and even if they're your twin brother they'd tell you where to go and what to do with your call for help.

It's all the rage with the American neocons and the Liberals here... All seem to worship Ayn Rand and her praise of selfishness and social Darwinism. If we want a loyal populace, we ought to follow Confucius and put the merchants at the lowest rank of society - merchants/capitalists are only ever loyal to one thing, and that's money. Like the Rothchilds funding both sides to any conflict - makes money either way.

But we often praise the wrong people, and encourage the wrong things. Like wishing Muslims to leave their faith and be like "us"... if a person could easily leave their god and abandon their culture like that, chances are they're not that loyal. That's why Jews and Muslims are probably the most loyal people you could hope to find because despite all the persecution and bad rap, they're still loyal to their faith. And now that their property, their family, their livelihood, their freedom is here in Australia...


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2015)

I think there is a bit of word gaming going on in this thread. We can easily observe the indolent imports in indolent sub communities. Of course there are home grown indolent 'burbs and yes there is an argument that the safety net reduces otherwise crime and throws a bone to third gen welfare families to break the nexus and get their kids into employment, etc, etc.

The bleeding obvious is that the formula for success anywhere in the world is for industry. Importing people who have no DNA for industry, not even agrarian and more interest in mind numbing slavishness to a made up excuse to do nothing diety is simply not a good fit. Add in the need to subjugate the family with threats of violence or retribution from the all powerful skylord and the disconnect between our secular society and their primitive paternal society becomes a gulf, with us paying to keep that gulf alive through a Centrelink bridge.

Why we are so keen to hand over our sovereignty to a bunch of no hopers escapes me. Why is notion that ethnic "community" leaders even given oxygen? WE are supposed to be a nation, not a ragtag union of disparate old world bigots who cling tenanciously to old world fantasies, old world hates and old world scores. We even use arguments like how Greeks or Italians enriched our eating habits, as if to unspeak of latent downsides we must not talk about, things like gratuitous  industry and the propensity to work ....... migrant families who want to build bonds and legacy, not segregate.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2015)

Very well said Tisme, my feelings exactly.

Immigration here must be on the basis of skills not family reunion or political correctness.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> The bleeding obvious is that the formula for success anywhere in the world is for industry. Importing people who have no DNA for industry, not even agrarian .




My problem with your statement is that you seem to be writing off whole ethnic groups based on a few members. I see this as a kin to writing off blacks, because you can point to examples of black communities with high crimes rates.

If you look across a city like Sydney, there are whole industries that are dominated by migrants, and they are normally industries that are low paid and not very nice jobs.

If you want a kebab at 2am in the morning, you will find kebab stands all over Sydney staffed by migrants, if you want to by fuel or get a Slurpee you will find 24hr convenience stores and petrol stations staffed by migrants, If you want to catch a taxi you find taxi's driven by migrants, (these are 3 stereotype examples, but they are true, and migrants are certainly not limited to those, many other jobs that Australians see as below them are filled by migrants)


----------



## luutzu (14 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think there is a bit of word gaming going on in this thread. We can easily observe the indolent imports in indolent sub communities. Of course there are home grown indolent 'burbs and yes there is an argument that the safety net reduces otherwise crime and throws a bone to third gen welfare families to break the nexus and get their kids into employment, etc, etc.
> 
> The bleeding obvious is that the formula for success anywhere in the world is for industry. Importing people who have no DNA for industry, not even agrarian and more interest in mind numbing slavishness to a made up excuse to do nothing diety is simply not a good fit. Add in the need to subjugate the family with threats of violence or retribution from the all powerful skylord and the disconnect between our secular society and their primitive paternal society becomes a gulf, with us paying to keep that gulf alive through a Centrelink bridge.
> 
> Why we are so keen to hand over our sovereignty to a bunch of no hopers escapes me. Why is notion that ethnic "community" leaders even given oxygen? WE are supposed to be a nation, not a ragtag union of disparate old world bigots who cling tenanciously to old world fantasies, old world hates and old world scores. We even use arguments like how Greeks or Italians enriched our eating habits, as if to unspeak of latent downsides we must not talk about, things like gratuitous  industry and the propensity to work ....... migrant families who want to build bonds and legacy, not segregate.




I think the grouping, some may call ghettoization, of ethnic groups around certain areas have more to do with economics and assimilation than they do with segregation.

First, when you migrate to an alien country and culture, it helps you to assimilate if you're close to those who also speak the same language as you do - easier to get help, make friends, socialise, ask for assistance. Second, being close to shops that sell the kind of food you eat, know what and where to buy, and being new and probably without your own car or know your way around... it saves money, time to buy what you need.

Also, if there's a large population of customers around, the Asian groceries, the medical, job, language and other services are more economically offered to new arrivals. Including such niceties as entertainment like music and videos from the home country.

With these systems close by, migrants will slowly venture outside and in time will integrate into the wider community. 

We're all humans. Human cannot just drop their cultural identity and habits just like that. Need times to adjusts.
The adults may find it harder, but the kids will have no problem what with school and its indoctrination, haha

But seriously, what is there not to like about Australia? It's safe, the weather is great, the air is clean, it's rich, your kids have a better chance of making it in the world and may even rise to be someone "important"...

and the gov't... they will have to find and do elaborate schemes to convince you to not get too upset at what they're doing. Back in the home country they'll just lock you up and throw away the keys.
----

Sovereignty... Australia, through the British, is a mini-empire. Skirt by seas, having New Zealand as a defacto 7th state, surrounded by other much poorer and weaker neighbours... we're a local hegemonic power. Not bad for a big country with only 23 million people.

As all empire does, we have a depopulated native population, a dominant ethnic majority that rule and govern, and multi-cultural society with minor ethnicities that live and grow at the pleasure of the majority.

So talks of losing the Australian Christian, or the Anglo-Saxon heritage, or losing our sovereign rights to, say Muslims... That's one of those diversions Chomsky and many other political scientists talks about.

The Arabs couldn't even control their own country back in the Middle East, good luck trying to have a go at it anywhere else.

So for the working class, or the working poor Australians whose ancestors arrived with the first fleet... with manufacturing going down the tube, lower and lower wages, farming or mining jobs either shut down or own by the more efficient corporations... Who is to blame for that... can't be the gov't and policies that benefits those who butter its bread; can't be the corporations or even the lack of investment or funding into local projects and industry... So there's those non-English speaking, funny looking migrants and refugees taking away our jobs and living off of us. Not really being told that often those migrants are being exploited in sweatshops, or work day and night in low paying jobs... trying to make it too.

---

A few years back I was driving my dad's van and at a traffic stop the engine died. The car behind beeps me, I signal them to go around and out jump an Arab guy... without much talking he knew what's happening and call all his friends out and they help push the van to a gas station nearby. They all rush off before I could thank them properly.

The van was at the entry and it's a long way up, so I went to the counter to ask if he sells a tin for the gas - the guy there - I think he's also Middle Eastern... said other people he know would use the water jug outside and fill it up, then drive to the pump. Saves me $15 or something for the jerry can they're selling.

Then some two years later two Arab guys broke into my house while we were home. We're lucky we caught sight of them the moment they broke in... still they managed to take my wife's handbag and all her cards and keys, then came back later and take the car too.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> My problem with your statement is that you seem to be writing off whole ethnic groups based on a few members. I see this as a kin to writing off blacks, because you can point to examples of black communities with high crimes rates.
> 
> If you look across a city like Sydney, there are whole industries that are dominated by migrants, and they are normally industries that are low paid and not very nice jobs.
> 
> If you want a kebab at 2am in the morning, you will find kebab stands all over Sydney staffed by migrants, if you want to by fuel or get a Slurpee you will find 24hr convenience stores and petrol stations staffed by migrants, If you want to catch a taxi you find taxi's driven by migrants, (these are 3 stereotype examples, but they are true, and migrants are certainly not limited to those, many other jobs that Australians see as below them are filled by migrants)




Yeah, I agree. It really is amazing how many times I feel like a kebab at 2 am.


Point is, such regions don't produce a lot of scientists, engineers or entrepreneurs because their society is geared around a religion, not rational thought. If you are saying that ME people are only fit for jobs that others don't want to do, you may be right but be prepared to be called a racist.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2015)

> Point is, such regions don't produce a lot of scientists, engineers or entrepreneurs because their society is geared around a religion, not rational thought.




I agree SR. Can you imagine this coming from mainstream religious leaders in the West


----------



## luutzu (14 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, I agree. It really is amazing how many times I feel like a kebab at 2 am.
> 
> 
> Point is, such regions don't produce a lot of scientists, engineers or entrepreneurs because their society is geared around a religion, not rational thought. If you are saying that ME people are only fit for jobs that others don't want to do, you may be right but be prepared to be called a racist.




Come on sir, that's wrong on a few level.

The ME has been occupied and colonised by the West since the British Empire - at least two hundred years ago.

Most of North West Africa goes to the French, so was Syria and Libya I think... The Brits control Egypt, what was the Persian empire all the way to Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Burma all the way down etc.

Then came the Nazi and WW2 all all those battles all over the place.

After WW2 the US took over from the British, kept what they call the "Arab facade" - the ruling elite working for Western powers... and all the resources goes elsewhere and whatever else it is colonised people have to put up with.

So that's at least 200 years of continuous domination. Might even be 300 because I saw paintings of Napoleon's Legions practising their cannons on Egypt's Sphinx.

I think most who are unfortunate enough to be born there would be lucky to just survive, forget about studying to be a scientist or what not.

The Middle East don't just have oil and gas, it holds a very important strategic position for all world power. Literally the link between east and west. The Suez Canal link all goods to and from the two sides... then there's the sweetest of sweet oil and not enough guns to protect it.  Hence all the liberation and national building efforts we and our military industrial complex can muster.

But that's how the world works. When they were strong, they too dominate weaker states and their people call Christians and infidels barbarians and savages too. Much like how Imperial China call everyone elses barbarians and vassal states... and then became the sick man of Asia almost overnight, it seem.

It's funny, sometimes, to hear how all great powers, from the Romans on down, all across the world... how great powers literally goes into weaker states, flatten cities, pile up the dead citizens... then call the defeated savages and barbarians. Then set up colonies, enslave the natives, then look upon their poor, malnourished and illiterate state as confirmation of their inherent inferiority.

All people of all big and small powers do it. So it's not a Western concept alone.

You can ask any Chinese living now and they'd probably tell you how evil the Japanese are and how noble the Chinese blood is... forgetting that they twice tried to take over Japan, and either directly or through proxy rule just about all states around the mainland pretty much since the First Emperor. I mean, even the Vietnamese... being dominated by China, France then the US... it did a number on the Cham people, the Cambodians and a few other smaller savages around.


Which reminds me, how come we don't have much of a military industrial complex of our own? We're sitting on just about all the natural resources there ever was... and our Plan A seems to be a strong alliance with the US, and Plan B is... Britannia?


----------



## luutzu (14 April 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I agree SR. Can you imagine this coming from mainstream religious leaders in the West
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 62267




Here we go:





and Here:

American Patriarchs (Puritan, Mormon, Baptist, Evangelical)

Even as the church must fear Christ Jesus, so must the wives also fear their husbands. And this inward fear must be shewed by an outward meekness and lowliness in her speeches and carriage to her husband….For if there be not fear and reverence in the inferior, there can be no sound nor constant honor yielded to the superior. ””John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandements, Puritan guidebook first published in 1603
The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. ””John Dod
The root of masculine is stronger, and of feminine weaker. The sun is a governing planet to certain planets, while the moon borrows her light from the sun, and is less or weaker. ””Joseph Smith, founder of LDS movement (1805-1844)
Women are made to be led, and counseled, and directed….And if I am not a good man, I have no just right in this Church to a wife or wives, or the power to propagate my species. What then should be done with me? Make a eunuch of me, and stop my propagation. ””Heber C. Kimball, venerated early LDS apostle (1801-1868)
A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. ””Official statement of Southern Baptist Convention, summer 1998 (15.7 million members)
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ””Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist leader (1930–)
The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands. ””James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999.
Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture. ””Mark Driscoll, founder of Mars Hill nondenominational mega-church franchise. (1970-)


More from here: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/20_disgustingly_misogynist_quotes_from_religious_leaders_partner/


----------



## Tink (15 April 2015)

Thanks for sharing your post, Hodgie. 
That was what I was getting at, and it doesn't matter who people are, we all arrived here and got on with working, and enjoying the country we live in.

Everyone has been through the same, whether you are black, white, Muslim, Asian whatever, and I don't understand singling people out.
Get on with it, work, build, add etc, and enjoy what we have here, don't cause trouble in the country you live in.
There are so many factors and changes, sometimes its hard to add them all, in my view.

Luutzu, good hearing your views too, and though I agree with some, I don't agree with others, we live in a free country and I am glad that we are allowed to express our thoughts, it does concern me how long for?
I am not just talking about Muslims, I am talking about society in general, the media etc.

My post was mainly on the media's fairness in how they portray both Muslims and Christians, which I posted in the ABC thread.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-abc-of-our-islamophobia/story-fni0ffxg-1227296169651
I know some will say, ugh, Andrew Bolt, but he said it better than I could, so the content was what I was getting at.
We had a few things happen in Melbourne and was glad he wrote it.

Sorry, VC, but I don't agree with you -- stopping mass at Christmas?

I don't know where you live but it is one of the biggest days here and in Australia, Easter is bigger in Europe.
Be it on the day or midnight mass.

Racist is one of those words that get bandied about way too quick in my view, but glad to hear you are close to your grandmother.

We have ANZAC day coming up soon, that brings it all home, I feel too.

I also have my views on our public schools, and the changes, which I have mentioned a few times. 
http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/
No longer teaching to read and write, now its all about how to think -- social engineering via the left.

I had one lady come to me not long ago enrolling in a Christian school, she was told she had to be put on the waiting list, its full. 
Her daughter is 2 years old.

Anyway, just my views.


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah, I agree. It really is amazing how many times I feel like a kebab at 2 am.
> 
> 
> .




I have eaten more than my fair share of kebabs, at 2am on my way home from a nights drinking, lol, and I don't think I am alone.



> Point is, such regions don't produce a lot of scientists, engineers or entrepreneurs because their society is geared around a religion, not rational thought.




Religion does stifle such things, but their brains are no different from ours, The Middle East used to be a hub of scientific advances, nothing stopping individuals who migrate hear having children who contribute to the sciences.



> If you are saying that ME people are only fit for jobs that others don't want to do, you may be right but be prepared to be called a racist




In no way am I saying that ethnic group can only work in those industries, I am defending the group from the charge that they are welfare scum, by pointing out that there are a large percentage among them willing to work in jobs most Aussies would turn their noses at.

As I said it's not limited to those industries either.


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2015)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> Sorry, VC, but I don't agree with you -- stopping mass at Christmas?
> 
> ...




I am not telling people to stop attending mass at Christmas (though I can recommend some things that are more fun) in my area some of the churches advertised that that there would be no Christmas day service.



> Racist is one of those words that get bandied about way too quick in my view, but glad to hear you are close to your grandmother.




Well racism itself does get bandied around to easily also


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2015)

Tink said:


> We have ANZAC day coming up soon, that brings it all home, I feel too.




Brings what home?

As an ex soldier, to me Anzac day is a sombre day where I think out my 2 mates who died and my many other mates who carry permanent physical and emotional wounds from a conflict that was started by and prolonged because of religion.

I also think about the generations of young men before my generation who suffered the same or worse, It's not a day of celebrating what's great, like Australia day. It's day remembering the sacrifices a lot of young men and women made, and a day to remind myself of the terrible things human nature cause us to do for Kings, gods and flags, and to resist these urges.

Probably up until I was 26 ANZAC was a lot like Australia Day to me, you know a "Yay, look how awesome Australians are" type day, Since then I don't think an Anzac day has passed that I haven't cried.


----------



## luutzu (15 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Brings what home?
> 
> As an ex soldier, to me Anzac day is a sombre day where I think out my 2 mates who died and my many other mates who carry permanent physical and emotional wounds from a conflict that was started by and prolonged because of religion.
> 
> ...




Sorry man... don't know what to say to that. hmmm... always fresh in our memories? scratch that... sorry, trying to cheer you up here.

Yea, I think all young people at one of or other thinks war is just and great. It's OK I guess to think like that when you're young but scary when the politicians seem to think of war too lightly.

Saw an interview with historian Stephen Cohen and he said pretty much all the current generation of political leaders in Europe, US (and I guess that includes Australia)... all of them haven't experience war at all. And with the destructive power they command, that is a scary situation.

I mean you may have a great leadership who do not need to experience to know the consequences or the damage it does... but then I saw Bush Jr. joking about WMD not here, not there.. .man...

But whatever the opportunist politicians or the corporation does, if it's anything I have seen that all the people do really appreciate the service and sacrifices you guys have made.

I visit the War Memorial and the museum in Canberra a long while back and everyone that visits there really do show that respect you know. They all have the kind of look and silent respect you see from people in Churches.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2015)

We have never seen it like that, VC, to be cheered on, it's about sacrifice and respect, remembering those that fought for this country.
As Luutzu said, very sad to hear about your friends.

We are still fighting overseas now, who are they fighting against, remind me?
How many Christians are being slaughtered, do we see it on our news?

I mentioned your grandmother which made me think of that generation, which has endured hard times and sacrifice, and the depression.

I added an article a while back to do with Victorian school children.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=28209&page=4&p=828396&viewfull=1#post828396


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

Tink said:


> We are still fighting overseas now, who are they fighting against, remind me?
> How many Christians are being slaughtered, do we see it on our news?




Religion of all types is causing problems around the world, The Christian faith is not immune, when you cherish your religious dogma more than you cherish people, rational thought and evidence, you can be capable of doing nasty things to other humans or bringing in terrible laws that violate human rights, Biblical teachings have and are still causing lots of needless suffering.

All I ask is that people push the silly religious texts aside, so their is room for rational debate and embracing life and reality for what it is, not a hocus pocus bronze age superstitious nonsense version.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2015)

Here, if you didn't know

Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory in eastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq. 

Its brutal tactics - including mass killings and abductions of members of religious and ethnic minorities, as well as the beheadings of soldiers and journalists - have sparked fear and outrage across the world and prompted US military intervention.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Here, if you didn't know
> 
> Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory in eastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq.
> 
> ...




Yes I am well aware of ISIS.

What is your point, I can provide a lot of examples of other religions including yours that have caused terrible things against humanity, If your point is "Atleast we are not as bad as ISIS" I think that's a pretty silly way of looking at it.

ISIS highlights my point exactly, when ever you through rationality to the wind in favour of a religious text, you can do some really terrible things, we need to move further and further away from the religious texts and closer to rational thought based on evidence to end these terrible things.

To the point that your brand  of religion (atleast in the developed world) is no longer publicly killing people, is because you have at least enough rational thought to ignore those parts of the bible. Your religion is still causing bad things.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> To the point that your brand  of religion (atleast in the developed world) is no longer publicly killing people, is because you have at least enough rational thought to ignore those parts of the bible. Your religion is still causing bad things.




So, can you point out any reason why Christianity seems to have moved past the Middle Ages while Islam seems stuck in Medieval times and what if anything we can do about it ?

It seems that only when you have separation of Church and State that you can at least have a secular society in which free thought can at least have a chance of overcoming dogma.

Seems to me that only by overthrowing the Islamic tyrants can we be free of this scourge, and no one seems willing to declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other infestations of repression.

So I think we are stuck with them, unless they give the free world a reasonable excuse to wipe them all out, like Hitler did.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, can you point out any reason why Christianity seems to have moved past the Middle Ages while Islam seems stuck in Medieval times and what if anything we can do about it ?




Remember, has moved on in the developed world (though sometimes it does slip in areas), However throughout Africa and other underdeveloped superstitious parts of the world human rights abuses still occur due to bible teachings.  



> It seems that only when you have separation of Church and State that you can at least have a secular society in which free thought can at least have a chance of overcoming dogma.
> 
> Seems to me that only by overthrowing the Islamic tyrants can we be free of this scourge, and no one seems willing to declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other infestations of repression.




I agree, public discussion must be allowed to over come the nonsense, when anyone that speaks out against a text can be charged with blasphemy, progress halts.

In the developed world, the principle of religious freedom gave rise to the possibility of secular society, allowing people to follow what ever faith they wanted choked the major brands of a lot of their power and influence, and paved the way for free thinkers to realise it's all BS.



.


----------



## luutzu (16 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, can you point out any reason why Christianity seems to have moved past the Middle Ages while Islam seems stuck in Medieval times and what if anything we can do about it ?
> 
> It seems that only when you have separation of Church and State that you can at least have a secular society in which free thought can at least have a chance of overcoming dogma.
> 
> ...




Christianity hasn't really moved beyond the bad old days. No religion really has. Just the followers might choose not to take everything literally. And they do that when they're exposed to some scientific ways of thinking or live under a gov't that does not persecute and chop their heads off for thinking different.

With regards to the ME and its Islamic despots and tyrants... like everywhere else there will always be people who want money and power... and if that can be gained from pretending you're pious and is one with god, then that's fine - turn up to the Mosque everyday... if that power is gained because a superpower backs you, then that's even better because while God is great, a couple of aircraft carriers and its battle group nearby is even greater.

It's nothing to do with Islam or Arab culture... you'll find all corrupt and power hungry people everywhere.. .just as you will find good and decent leaders and people among all walks of life too.

So in our democracy, we find politicians hanging with the people, visiting schools and factories, walk among the people and the cameras... and it's always around election time. Then during those 3 or 4 years... merrghhh... Got Murdoch and Packer to please else the old man start tweeting nasty stuff again.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> Christianity hasn't really moved beyond the bad old days. No religion really has. Just the followers might choose not to take everything literally. And they do that when they're exposed to some scientific ways of thinking or live under a gov't that does not persecute and chop their heads off for thinking different.




Good point, I think if you put most of the religious folk on this thread back to a pre scientific age, they may well be happy to blame an earth quake or a drought on having heathens like me among society, I doubt they would hesitate to drag me out and burn me alive to get back on side with their imaginary friend.

Even in recent years, some big time American TV religious charlatans have blamed natural disasters on America becoming to gay friendly.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Good point, I think if you put most of the religious folk on this thread back to a pre scientific age, they may well be happy to blame an earth quake or a drought on having heathens like me among society, I doubt they would hesitate to drag me out and burn me alive to get back on side with their imaginary friend.




I hope that is tongue in cheek, because it's rubbish and I think you know it. The real religious ratbags don't even bother to go on forums like this, because they only preach to the already converted as it's too hard for them to present a reasoned argument.



> Even in recent years, some big time American TV religious charlatans have blamed natural disasters on America becoming to gay friendly.




And it only shows what fools they are.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I hope that is tongue in cheek, because it's rubbish and I think you know it. The real religious ratbags don't even bother to go on forums like this, because they only preach to the already converted as it's too hard for them to present a reasoned argument.




It's not tongue in cheek, but I think you have got me wrong. I am talking about if a person like Pav or Tink or any other person who has bought into this nonsense even in the scientific era, grew up in the pre scientific era (before forums), they would easily buy into their religious leaders who preached that heathens like you and I should be killed.

Pav especially has already shown we some of his comments his religious ideas influence him enough to allow him to discriminate against minority groups, and that's in this day and age, imagine how that would be amplified in the superstitious times of 700 years ago.



> And it only shows what fools they are.




enough people listen to them to make them millionaires.

Listen to this fool, his opinions remind me of some of our discussions with Pav.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2015)

Where does science come from, VC?

Like I said, you atheists are like rebellious children.

No respect for their parents


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Where does science come from, VC?




Not from the bible, that's for sure. Science  developed over a long time, the Greeks and the Arabs made some early inroads into the development of scientific reasoning and investigation, but the scientific method was refined over a long period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method



> Like I said, you atheists are like rebellious children.
> 
> No respect for their parents




not sure what you mean by that.

I respect people, I disrespect silly ideas.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2015)

Well it came from religion, hence the parents/children.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well it came from religion, hence the parents/children.




Galileo might disagree


I really don't see why people need to carry the baggage of religion if they want to believe in God. Blind Faith is just that, blind and the reverence being given to men of the cloth is being sorely tested by the exposure of pretty horrible things that some of them got up to.

Surely is possible to believe in a life hereafter with cowtowing to the religious superstitions of past centuries ?


----------



## Tink (16 April 2015)

You don't have to be attached to a religion to believe in God, Rumpole, that is your choice.

Just as it's my choice to be involved.

I was just stating where science started, that is all.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well it came from religion, hence the parents/children.




Which religion? 

I think you are a bit confused there, offcourse some people who practice science had religions, but religion didn't invent the scientific method, and when these early scientists came to conclusions that went against the established religion, they were often threatened, imprisond or killed.

I mean Charles Darwin was religious early in life, but you can hardly say the religion helped him develop or support the theory of evolution, many religions to this day strongly oppose the concept.


----------



## bellenuit (17 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Which religion?
> 
> I think you are a bit confused there, offcourse some people who practice science had religions, but religion didn't invent the scientific method, and when these early scientists came to conclusions that went against the established religion, they were often threatened, imprisond or killed.
> 
> I mean Charles Darwin was religious early in life, but you can hardly say the religion helped him develop or support the theory of evolution, many religions to this day strongly oppose the concept.




I have to agree there. I had an argument on a different forum (US based) about Islam's contribution to science. Like you, I failed to see what Islam, the religion, contributed. Undoubtably there were many Muslim scholars that made huge contributions to Maths and Astronomy during Islam's heyday, but nothing that was added to scientific knowledge was the result of the religion itself. The Quran and Hadith haven't contributed a single shred of additional scientific knowledge that wasn't already patently obvious to even uneducated people of that day. The best that could be said is that Islam in its heyday created an environment that allowed scientific knowledge to flourish, just as Islam in the last several centuries created an environment that hampered scientific endeavour. Islam only helped by not being an obstacle to scientific enquiry or discovery, but it itself added nothing. 

The same could be said about Christianity. There are many eminent scientists who are and were Christians, but what have the holy texts of Christianity revealed that was not otherwise known. One would think that if the Bible was indirectly on directly the work of a deity, that there would be something it would have added to our knowledge of the universe. But can anyone name any piece of scientific knowledge that is known or was first known due to some revelation in the Bible. 

At best we can attribute some of our scientific knowledge to the promotion of education by Christian leaders, but it was the fruits of the educated mind that yielded the results. The texts and dogmas of religion have never promoted enquiry, but there are countless examples where they deem enquiry to be evil and to be avoided.


----------



## Tink (17 April 2015)

Well to put it bluntly, no Catholic Church, no scientific method.

That is where it started.

In the monasteries.


----------



## dutchie (17 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well to put it bluntly, no Catholic Church, no scientific method.
> 
> That is where it started.
> 
> In the monasteries.




And here I was thinking that it had started in the caves.

"Look, I have, through scientific methods, discovered fire!"


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well to put it bluntly, no Catholic Church, no scientific method.
> 
> That is where it started.
> 
> In the monasteries.




I'm not sure that the Catholic Church was a catalyst nor nursery for modern science. From my own postulation, I suspect ideas wouldn't see the light of day unless it was wrapped and tied in Catholicism or Anglicanism. I think Newton was a classic example of monastic style servitude to the church, but a thirst for knowledge (I guess big bangs didn't matter much to maths and physics back then).

I am rather confused on some of the previous posts, especially from VC. Is there any chance, VC,  of a short summary of what you are standing up for; secularism, anti religion, denial of Islamic predilection in Arab culture? From what I'm reading you seem to be demanding individuals be evaluated rather than the tribes they belong to, which is very noble, but surely Islam and Judaism are so entwined in the tribal culture they can't be unravelled?


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2015)

Tisme said:


> I am rather confused on some of the previous posts, especially from VC. Is there any chance, VC,  of a short summary of what you are standing up for; secularism, anti religion, denial of Islamic predilection in Arab culture? From what I'm reading you seem to be demanding individuals be evaluated rather than the tribes they belong to, which is very noble, but surely Islam and Judaism are so entwined in the tribal culture they can't be unravelled?




I am a passionate atheist, as I believe religions nonsense has many bad side effects, and I believe accepting reality on realities terms and dumping superstition leads to a better life, how ever I am also strongly pro religious freedom, because the libertarian side of me believes people should be able to do what they like provided it isn't harming anyone of infringing on the rights of others, I also understand that a culture of religious freedom is what protects atheists like me from the penalties I would have faced in countries without religious freedom.

I am also against racism, or any type of stereotyping that attempts to judge people based on race, sex, religion, etc. Any time to lump whole groups together and make judgements on the whole group, you are going to be doing an injustice to some members in that group.

I get your confusion, you see some anti religious comments, and assume I must be a Muslim hating guy that wants to ban religion, and won't mind stereotyping people, this is not correct.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well to put it bluntly, no Catholic Church, no scientific method.
> 
> That is where it started.
> 
> In the monasteries.




Lol, nope human curiosity, testing and learning started long before the catholic charlatans.

No doubt the Catholic Church had members who had an inbuilt thirst for knowledge just like any group of humans, this might have lead them to the church to begin with, and later caused them to investigate and learn, however it's not a "catholic" thing, I think a search for knowledge is a human thing.

I think religion was some of our earliest attempts at understanding the world, but because they were our earliest attempts, they are also our most flawed and worst attempts. And to try and hang on to old ideas in the face of evidence against them is deeply unscientific.

Science changes its mind based on what's observed, faith is the denial of evidence so that belief can be preserved- Tim Minchin


----------



## Tink (17 April 2015)

Well I can only give you my view, you are welcome to your own.

_The Scientific Revolution took root in a Western Europe whose theological and philosophical foundations, Catholic at their very core, proved fertile soil for the development of the scientific enterprise. The mature idea of international law emerged from the Late Scholastics, as did concepts central to the emergence of economics as a distinct discipline.

These latter two contributions emerged from the European universities, a creation of the High Middle Ages that occurred under the auspices of the Church. Unlike the academies of ancient Greece, each of which tended to be dominated by a single school of thought, the universities of medieval Europe were places of intense intellectual debate and exchange.

David Lindberg explains: "t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university."

The Catholic Scholastics' eagerness to search for the truth, to study and employ a great diversity of sources, and treat objections to their positions with precision and care, endowed the medieval intellectual tradition - and by extension the universities in which that tradition developed and matured - with a vitality of which the West may rightly boast.

All of these areas: economic thought, international law, science, university life, charity, religious ideas, art, morality - these are the very foundations of a civilisation, and in the West every single one of them emerged from the heart of the Catholic Church.

It goes on ......_


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2015)

Tink said:


> Well to put it bluntly, no Catholic Church, no scientific method.
> 
> That is where it started.
> 
> In the monasteries.




So when Aristarchus in 230bc discovered that the sun was at the centre of the solar system, and that the earth revolved around the sun and the moon revolved around the earth, How exactly did the Catholic Church assist him with this?

http://http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Considering the church itself was a few hundred years away from existing, how can you say it invented science, when early scientists were already making important discoveries, and humans had been investigating, discovering and inventing for thousands of years.

I think this is another example of your catholic centric view of history.

The interesting thing is, if you erased all human knowledge today, the sciencetific knowledge would slowly be rediscovered, eventually we would rediscover that the earth is round, it orbits the sun, germ theory, theory of gravity, evolution etc would all be rediscovered in time, however the religions wouldn't be, there may be some other crazy stories, but the bible and Quran would never come back as they are, yet we would discover everything else even without Catholics, lol.


----------



## luutzu (17 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ...
> 
> The interesting thing is, if you erased all human knowledge today, the sciencetific knowledge would slowly be rediscovered, eventually we would rediscover that the earth is round, it orbits the sun, germ theory, theory of gravity, evolution etc would all be rediscovered in time, however the religions wouldn't be, there may be some other crazy stories, but the bible and Quran would never come back as they are, yet we would discover everything else even without Catholics, lol.





Very true.

Another example would be the Theory of Evolution. Some Dutch [?] scientist came to the same conclusion a decade or two after Darwin. He heard about Darwin's conclusions and concerns about having his findings publish - how it will turn the Church's doctrine on its head and so forth - so wrote to Darwin telling Darwin that if he do not publish he will anyway.

This also give an interesting insight into the Church/Religion and its censorship against science and reason.

Religion cannot be scientific, cannot open itself to science and learning because it does not allow its principles to be questioned, and never permit any challenge to any of its claims. When the answer to any mystery, any claims or events is "God works in mysterious ways", "have faith", "god have his reasons", "it is written", "because I said so"... science and discovery is out the window.

In science, anyone can question or try to disprove any theory - there are no sacred cows. While there are scientists so renown, and ideas so entrenched that most scientists don't question and false conclusions can go on for centuries... but that is more the fault of the scientists at the time, not the discipline itself.

I heard somewhere that Mass in Europe were in Latin up until only a couple century ago. When most of the followers can't even read or write in their own language, preaching the word of God in Latin is not really aiming to teach so people can understand, but simply to submit. When you amen to whatever it is that's said every week, chances are you'll also amen to whatever it is that's said with great emphasis in your language too.

----

With regards to Tink's and the Church making it possible for science etc.... If there is any truth in that, it's more as a byproduct of the Church's doing rather than its encouragement. So when Pope whatever his name paid Michelangelo and other Renaissance artists and scholars, or when the Church commision grand churches and cathedrals - leading to advances in engineering and architecture, or when the King James Bible forces the peasants to learn to read... it's all about God and worship and payment to his representatives on Earth - every good thing that came out of these are unintended.

So you got Mendel and his work with peas and flowers that led to genetics and mutation, some other monk discovering double entry bookkeeping... most other monks spend all day lashing themselves, live in pain and suffering because this life is sinful and so on until you get to paradise.

When you believe this life is just to get by and the real and eternal life is what awaits you... chances are you're not going to bother with discovery and doubts and queries just in case you upset Him and spend eternity in Hell. The faithful who do want to discovery and enquire do so saying it is to simply discover God's laws... and if they're really good and really honest, they'll have a midlife crisis, stop going to Church and change the wordings on their tombstone.


----------



## Value Collector (18 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> So you got Mendel and his work with peas and flowers that led to genetics and mutation, some other monk discovering double entry bookkeeping... most other monks spend all day lashing themselves, live in pain and suffering because this life is sinful and so on until you get to paradise.




If you were a thinking person in those day, such as Mendel you would no doubt be attracted to employment at the church, because it gave you a lot more time for private thought and was less hard labour than other lines of employment. This in no way means the church is responsible for your findings though.

Even Charles Darwin nearly became a preacher, as he believed it would give him lots of free time during the week to work on his study, after all it's a relatively easy life for you once the community believe god wants them to give up 10% of their pay to you, and you are an unquestionable authority, lol.


----------



## luutzu (18 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If you were a thinking person in those day, such as Mendel you would no doubt be attracted to employment at the church, because it gave you a lot more time for private thought and was less hard labour than other lines of employment. This in no way means the church is responsible for your findings though.
> 
> Even Charles Darwin nearly became a preacher, as he believed it would give him lots of free time during the week to work on his study, after all it's a relatively easy life for you once the community believe god wants them to give up 10% of their pay to you, and you are an unquestionable authority, lol.




Yea, a pretty cushy job I'd say. Memorise a few key passages and rituals then live the rest of your life well fed, well sheltered, well dressed, well versed in a foreign language and well respected for not doing much and never questioning much of anything at all - kinda like most people in high finance nowadays


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yea, a pretty cushy job I'd say. Memorise a few key passages and rituals then live the rest of your life well fed, well sheltered, well dressed, well versed in a foreign language and well respected for not doing much and never questioning much of anything at all - kinda like most people in high finance nowadays




Thats probably why the church is attractive for pedophiles, plus the trust that such positions offer.


----------



## luutzu (18 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Thats probably why the church is attractive for pedophiles, plus the trust that such positions offer.




Yea, the trust and the privilege is definitely there. And it seems to be strongest, or at least more apparent to me, in small villages in developing countries.

I made a friend while he was over and when we talk about his family back there... said how proud he is of his 7 year old son, very smart and always win first place at school. He's so good even the Father in the village recognised him and invites the kid to stay overnight at the Church to be taught privately etc.

Hearing that alarms bell went off... I find ways to tell him, you know.. over here there's a lot of cases of priests and kids... maybe keep an eye out just in case. I'm not saying that father is that, but just in case man.

The guy was shock to hear that such thing is even possible, then got upset that I even think a priest could do that.

Anyway, in small villages like that, the Father's storeroom is always full during New Year and Christmas... The dirt poor peasants would literally saved up to at least give him a few kg of salt or sugar or rice. There's a good priest I heard of who kept some and redistribute the rest to the poor... the guy before him though... forget about it, it'll bring them closer to God or something.


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Thats probably why the church is attractive for pedophiles, plus the trust that such positions offer.




maybe, I think the sexual repression of the church also has something to do with it.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> maybe, I think the sexual repression of the church also has something to do with it.




By "*The* Church" you mean Catholics ?

 Methodists and Anglicans et al whose priests are allowed to marry don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with pedophiles as the Catholics.

That's another religious dichotomy isn't it ? All those married Anglican priests must be "sinners" according to the Catholic Church.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> By "*The* Church" you mean Catholics ?
> 
> Methodists and Anglicans et al whose priests are allowed to marry don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with pedophiles as the Catholics.
> 
> That's another religious dichotomy isn't it ? All those married Anglican priests must be "sinners" according to the Catholic Church.




I really mean any church that represses sexuality, the catholic church is guilty of this in regards to their clergy, but others are guilty of this by introducing all sorts of ideas to alter normal sexual behaviour eg shaming gays, banning sex before marriage while also shaming masturbation etc.


----------



## Value Collector (20 April 2015)

On the Topic of sexual repression, check this guy out. He was a leader of one of the United states' biggest church group. He preached against homosexuality for years, shaming gays and stirring up hate against him, then it turns out he is actually gay. However because of his religious beliefs, he is a self hating Gay man trying to live in a hetro sexual relationship.

I actually feel sorry for him, and all the gay men and women whom he has shamed into hiding their sexuality, I see him as a victim also.


----------



## Tisme (20 April 2015)

Value Collector said:


> On the Topic of sexual repression, check this guy out.
> 
> I actually feel sorry for him, and all the gay men and women whom he has shamed into hiding their sexuality, I see him as a victim also.





Self victimisation is a trait in many minority tribes. Self victimisation is used successfully in marketing strategies as a tactic for product identification and differentiation.


----------



## Tink (28 August 2015)

Interesting article -

*Political correctness is killing freedom of speech*
Brendan O'Neill

_On 26 August, I spoke at the University of Sydney on PC, free speech and campus life. 
Here are my opening remarks._

Ladies, gentlemen, people of indeterminate gender.
There are two reasons you should be freaked out by political correctness.
The first is that it prevents people from saying what they want to say, from expressing what they believe to be true. And it is fundamentally illiberal to stop people from expressing their beliefs and their ideas.
And the second is that it prevents the rest of us from hearing those ideas and deciding for ourselves if they are good or bad. It infantilises all of us through denying us the right to weigh things up, to argue over them, to be the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.
Instead it gives that role to a dictatorship of do-gooders, who decide on our behalf what words and thoughts are fit for public consumption.
On the first point, the stifling of non-mainstream thought. One of the great fallacies of PC is that it’s just about being polite. They call it “institutionalised politeness”. It’s about eradicating ugly terms and ethnic slurs, so what’s the beef? Who could be against that, except racists and misogynists?
This is disingenuous in the extreme. PC doesn’t only prevent the use of shocking words; it strangles the expression of ideas, ideologies, moral beliefs, and religious convictions. Like every form of censorship in history, it curtails the expression of beliefs that an elitist group of people have judged to be wicked or foul.
Let me give you some examples of campus clampdowns on un-PC speech which are actually assaults on the expression of moral convictions.
At a university in America, a newspaper has said it will no longer accept op-eds opposed to gay marriage, criticism of gay marriage being the latest verboten utterance of our unforgiving age. It dresses this up as a PC measure to protect gays from offence, but the real consequence is that Christian beliefs, traditionalist convictions, are no longer permitted.
On some campuses in Britain, criticism of the Muslim veil is now branded “Islamophobia”, or even “hijabphobia”, and you will be shushed or shamed for doing it. This is done in the name of protecting Muslim women from offence, but the impact is to demonise an utterly legitimate moral viewpoint: that the veil is not a great thing.
On campuses across the West, including this one, any expression of support for Israel is met with a furious response. Student radicals are like Pavlov’s dogs when it comes to Israel: any mention of Zionism and they go mental. They ban or boycott all things Zionist, in the same way far-right regimes once banned or boycotted all things Jewish.
And they try to disguise this ugly intolerance in PC language, as an attempt to prevent the expression of offensive words that might pollute campus life and harm Muslim students in particular; apparently pro-Zionist commentary makes students feel “unsafe”. But once again, it is fundamentally a political idea, the idea that Israel is a legitimate entity, which is being crushed here, not just un-PC words.
So don’t buy the idea that PC is merely politeness or good manners. It’s about policing the parameters of acceptable thought. It’s about patrolling the borders of what it is acceptable to think and express.
Whether campus censors are raging against gay-marriage sceptics, or climate-change deniers, or people who think Israel is a cool country, they’re seeking to restrict the public expression of moral views.
Especially contrarian views. As we saw with the mob at the University of Western Australia that shut down Bjorn Lomborg’s climate-change institute on the basis that Lomborg is a “climate contrarian”. Perhaps all academics should in future be asked: “Are you now or have you ever been a climate contrarian?” How extraordinary that those who claim to be left-wing, once the home of contrarian thinking, should now treat contrarianism as tantamount to a crime, to be screamed and chased off campus.
And the way they stymie all these non-mainstream, supposedly controversial ideas is by branding them offensive, “hate speech”. What they forget, because they really are this arrogant, is that one person’s “hate speech” is another person’s deeply held moral conviction.
The Christian student who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman truly believes that. The Jewish student who thinks Israel is a great country really believes that. And to my mind, stopping people from expressing things they truly believe is outrageous, an unspeakable offence against democracy, especially at a university, where ideas are meant to flow and crash and battle it out.
Those students believe those things just as surely as PC students believe the ABC is wonderful or Julia Gillard was a good prime minister. Those are mad ideas with little basis in fact, but you aren’t prevented from expressing them, are you? Imagine if you were. Well, now you know exactly how the un-PC people feel, who are harassed or “no platformed” or prevented from holding meetings for saying what they believe in their heart of hearts to be true and right.
And the second point about PC: it doesn’t only ride roughshod over the rights of the speaker; it denigrates the rights of the audience, too.
The reason the PC think certain ideas and words shouldn’t be expressed is because they don’t trust you. They think if a far-right speaker comes to campus, all you brainless idiots will be transformed into violent racists. They think if you hear the Christian viewpoint on marriage, you will become demented homophobics. They want to restrict public speech because they see you as fickle morons; as psychos-in-waiting who must be kept non-psychopathic through censorship, through the hiding-away of naughty words or images that might turn you mad.
Even worse, they see some of you as fragile victims, who need protection. The PC consider themselves the great protectors of minorities from offence. They want to save black people from racist words, gay people from Christian beliefs, women from gruff male banter.
How paternalistic. How insulting. The idea that we need these wise, white, impeccably middle-class student leaders to protect blacks and others from harmful speech is not a progressive one. It is neo-colonialist. It is shot through with a white-saviour complex and a view of minorities as incapable of negotiating public life on their own.
This is why you must oppose PC. It silences people; it infantilises everyone; and it allows tiny groups to style themselves as the guardians of moral decency and defenders of the poor, sad little people. PC should be burnt to the ground. Go forth and be as un-PC as it’s possible to be.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2015)

Tink said:


> Interesting article -
> 
> *Political correctness is killing freedom of speech*
> Brendan O'Neill
> ...




Big ask when there are so many laws in place to ping people who digress.

I'll do my best though Tink


----------



## Tink (6 October 2015)

Oxford undergraduates and the ISIS school of art criticism

– Newsweek, 2 August 2015 –

_If you thought only the whackjobs of ISIS were hellbent on obliterating statues that offend them, think again. Thousands of miles from the Islamic State, in what you would imagine to be the different moral galaxy of the Western academy, there are young hotheads who likewise want to remove from public view the monuments that have the temerity to upset them.

Earlier this month it was revealed that a bunch of students at Oxford want a statue of Cecil Rhodes removed. Rhodes was a British imperialist, founder of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), architect of Apartheid and all-around unpleasant guy. And according to Oxford students calling themselves the Rhodes Must Fall movement, his statue at Oriel College””his alma mater””is not only offensive but an act of violence.

“There’s a violence to having to walk past the statue every day,” one student told Sky News. The statue is “really problematic.”

Problematic is to the intolerant PC brigade what “haram” is to Islamists””it’s used to brand things that are wicked, and which should ideally be No Platformed or Safe Spaced out of existence. The activists’ casual conflation of speech with violence””or rather, of walking by a statue with feeling assaulted””speaks to the terrifying Orwellianism that has much of the Western student body in its grip.

The notion that expression is a form of violence””whether it’s controversial books that are said to assault students’ fragile minds or invited speakers whose words allegedly harm students””opens the door to the policing of speech as thoroughly as we police physical force. After all, if walking past a statue is like being punched in the face, or hearing a controversial idea is akin to being stabbed, then that statue must go and that idea must be extinguished, right? Equating thought with violence has been a key tactic of every tyrannical censor in history.

Unlike ISIS, the Oxford students aren’t wielding sledgehammers against the stone object of their fury (not yet, anyway). And where ISIS has mainly demolished statues it considers idolatrous, these students are more politically minded demolishers, keen to rid Oxford of the likeness of a racist. And yet, the similarities between these Western statue-fearers and the ISIS statue-destroyers are striking.

The “Rhodes Must Fall” guys talk of Rhodes’s problematic “legacy” and how it has no place on a 21st-century campus. One says his statue is “a reminder…of the colonial project.”

ISIS, too, is also all about erasing legacies. Its English-language magazine Dabiq justified the destruction of artifacts at Mosul Museum in Iraq as a means of “erasing the legacy of a ruined nation.” It boasts of having “laid to waste the…legacy of a nation that had long passed from the face of the Earth.”

What ISIS and the Oxford lot share in common is a Year Zero attitude, a desire to rewrite history. It’s a deeply authoritarian instinct: not merely to discuss the past and challenge its events and ideas, but to cleanse all remnants of it from the present. It’s cultural cleansing, disguised as an Islamic duty by ISIS and as radical anti-racism by Oxford students.

Oxford students aren’t the only ones aping the ISIS approach to yesteryear’s monuments. They were inspired by students at the University of Cape Town, who protested against and threw **** at a statue of Rhodes until it was taken down last April.

In the U.S., students at the University of Texas at Austin (UTA) are agitating for the removal of a statue of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy during the Civil War. A UTA student leader says the statue is “not in line with…the ideals of a diverse and all-inclusive university.” Imagine that””a historical monument that fails to conform to the values of today.

Earlier this year, St. Louis University took down a statue of the Jesuit Missionary priest Father Pierre-Jean De Smet holding a crucifix over Native Americans. The statue has been there for decades, but it was recently judged “culturally insensitive.” Students at the University of Maryland are demanding the renaming of their football stadium, currently named for H.C. Byrd, a segregationist.

In the wake of Charleston church massacre, The Guardian actually set up a page to track all outdated or racist symbols and monuments in the U.S. Seriously. It’s like a sex offenders’ registery for statues.

If every old thing, whether it’s the works of Mark Twain, which are strewn with racial epithets offensive to modern ears, or those libraries named after slave-owner Thomas Jefferson, were to be judged by how well it sits with modern-day mores, we’d have to tear down everything. News Flash: People in the past had different values to ours.

The attempt to airbrush historical stuff from the present is the height of authoritarianism. It’s an attempt not merely to control what people can think and say today, but to project contemporary conformism back in time. Yet being surrounded by statues of flawed historical figures and dead eccentric writers is part of living in a complex, colorful society. They’re reminders of history’s ups and downs, and its changes.

“He who controls the past controls the future,” said Orwell. Yes, that’s it. 

The intolerant students and others seeking to smash past images and ideas really have their eye on establishing their future authority to determine what all of us may think and say._


----------



## pixel (6 October 2015)

PC and suppression of ideas on ideological grounds is just another sign of people's insecurity, which brings about the Nanny State, the need to treat adult citizens like incompetent infants.

Consider the warning labels on plastic wrappers: Don't let children choke in this! Or on washing machines: Not suitable for pets and children!
Consider the laws forcing childless couples to still fence their backyard pools, lest an  unsupervised child trespasses and comes to harm.
Consider closure of suburban playgrounds lest some child falls off the swing and gets a bruise.
Consider the mass poisoning of citizens with fluorides in everybody's drinking water, instead of educating people not to over-indulge in sweets.
We are no longer expected to think for ourselves and be responsible for our considered actions. Instead, some dictatorial minority is usurping the right to regulate our every thought and deed. Yet not even those dictatorial minorities are prepared to consider the consequences of their laws and rules. Least of all, they accept responsibility.


----------



## Tisme (7 October 2015)

pixel said:


> We are no longer expected to think for ourselves and be responsible for our considered actions. Instead, some dictatorial minority is usurping the right to regulate our every thought and deed. Yet not even those dictatorial minorities are prepared to consider the consequences of their laws and rules. Least of all, they accept responsibility.




I'm more a disciple of the William Golding school of thought. In essence we have an instinct for morality, search for peace, for rules and the good of the tribe. However there's a dangerous undertow of savagery and anarchy that surfaces to gain supremacy over the group when the environment doesn't match civilisation.

It's that frustration of the savage wanting freedom to exist (benignly) that puts us at odds with ordered society. Its the savage in normal people given authority that compels them to become little hitlers who make rules upon rules. 

Guaranteed you put 10 subordinate halfwit public servants in a room and eventually they will spontaneously think up policy that can be used to organise the population as they would want themselves organised and subjegated by a higher authority.

I reckon we innately want chaos to upset our lives, if only for the excitement ... it's one reason people get drawn back time and time again into internet fracas, be it farcebook, twitter, discussion groups, etc.


----------



## pixel (26 October 2015)

Brilliant opinion piece by Liam Bartlett: *"Free Speech comes at a Cost"*

Read it at http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opi...t/news-story/cedaf7202290bbd3f29a05a517edb650

But for there to be a rational and meaningful discussion, our political leaders - elected representatives of the people - need a modicum of intelligence and reason. And there lies the rub: The Powers that be find it far easier to "forbid" and "suppress" than engage, learn, and adapt.


----------



## Tink (23 July 2016)

_Never have Voltaire's words been so pertinent—a grand censorship is being engineered through political correctness._


----------



## luutzu (24 July 2016)

Tink said:


> View attachment 67523
> 
> 
> _Never have Voltaire's words been so pertinent””a grand censorship is being engineered through political correctness._




"criticize" don't just mean pointing out (or making up) the negative while ignoring any positive. Fair and Balance, as the world's greatest media corporation will tell you.


----------



## McLovin (24 July 2016)

Tink said:


> View attachment 67523
> 
> 
> _Never have Voltaire's words been so pertinent—a grand censorship is being engineered through political correctness._




Lol. Wrong person. Voltaire never said it, it was some neo-Nazi in America.


----------



## Tink (9 August 2016)

*Free speech back on agenda*

_Liberal senators are backing plans for new legislation to protect free speech in a move to launch public hearings into Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, reviving a contentious reform that divided Tony Abbott’s government more than two years ago.

West Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith is pushing for a parliamentary inquiry to thrash out the changes in the wake of growing calls for change from some of the crossbenchers who will share the balance of power in the upper house.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and the Liberal Democratic Party are joining Family First in reviving the campaign against Section 18C, which makes it an offence to “offend, insult, humiliate or *intimidate” someone on the grounds of their race, colour or ethnic origin.

The crossbench moves suggest that the reform would gain support from eight of the 11 crossbench senators including David Leyonhjelm from the LDP, Bob Day from Family First, Derryn Hinch from Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party and the four senators from One Nation.

Senator Smith welcomed those moves yesterday and said a first step should be to launch a parliamentary inquiry that could hear all sides of the argument.

Victorian Liberal James Paterson said the support from the crossbench meant there was an opportunity to get changes made.

“That means there is a very good chance a bill to fix 18C could pass the parliament if the government takes it up, as I will be advocating for it to,” he said.

Labor and the Greens have warned against changing the law on the grounds that it would leave ethnic groups exposed to attack, while the issue divides the *Coalition in the wake of the decision to abandon reform in 2014 even though Mr Abbott pledged to repeal 18C.

Mr Hinch has publicly called for the issue to be tackled while One Nation senator-elect Malcolm Roberts said public debate needed more open speech.

“What tends to happen is we address the messenger rather than the message. This issue is not discussed instead because people are afraid of speaking up,” he said.

Senator Leyonhjelm said he would introduce a bill to remove Section 18C.

“If you want to take offence, that’s your choice. You have the choice of choosing another feeling,” he said on ABC’s Insiders program. “Offence is always taken, not given.’’_

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...a/news-story/a970ae1b4e2e29b8192df07e234b8e35


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2016)

Tink said:


> *Free speech back on agenda*
> 
> _
> 
> Labor and the Greens have warned against changing the law on the grounds that it would leave ethnic groups exposed to attack, ....._



_

I wonder why these article rarely declare who specifically says these things, while the Libs always get a name thrown into personify their claim.

Labor is like the 19th century born Great Aunt who who shutdown family conversations in the name of Victorian era conservatism and probity. The Greens are Great Aunt's poodle. _


----------



## CanOz (9 August 2016)

This is good thing, i think many nations may see what happens in Australia but this could be a sign of things to come in terms of free speech over politically correct.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2016)

> Senator Leyonhjelm said he would introduce a bill to remove Section 18C.
> 
> “If you want to take offence, that’s your choice. You have the choice of choosing another feeling,” he said on ABC’s Insiders program. “Offence is always taken, not given.’’




Ah what a very, very  special person we have in the Honourable Senator Leyonhielm.  I wonder how he might take some pretty pointed  very funny  comments about his good self?  Like to see
Check it out.  Edgiest 3 minutes you'll in a long time.



> *The Chaser pranks David Leyonhjelm by making him his own Wicked Camper*
> NEWS
> NEWS
> 207
> ...


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Ah what a very, very  special person we have in the Honourable Senator Leyonhielm.  I wonder how he might take some pretty pointed  very funny  comments about his good self?  Like to see
> Check it out.  Edgiest 3 minutes you'll in a long time.
> 
> 
> ...




Funny as.

I also found myself fixated on the woman's hands behind the chatterers and her keyboard method.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Ah what a very, very  special person we have in the Honourable Senator Leyonhielm.  I wonder how he might take some pretty pointed  very funny  comments about his good self?  Like to see
> Check it out.  Edgiest 3 minutes you'll in a long time.
> 
> 
> ...




Consider the difference netween these two statements:

1/-Climate fantastists are loons

2/ basilio is a loon.

Notice anything?


----------



## cynic (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> 1/-Climate fantastists are loons
> 
> ...




Don't tell me! Let me guess! 

The second statement is offensive to self-respecting loons.

Edit: my response was intended to be taken in a hypothetical context and should not be mistaken for agreement with the veracity (or lack thereof) of the two hypothetical statements.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> 1/-Climate fantastists are loons
> 
> ...




Not winning the scientific argument there Sifu?


----------



## cynic (9 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> Not winning the scientific argument there Sifu?




The inclusion of a specific ASFer in the scenario may have had an unfortunately diversive side effect.

Did you truly fail to recognise the distinction between those two statements and their relevance to the clip posted by basilio?


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2016)

cynic said:


> The inclusion of a specific ASFer in the scenario may have had an unfortunately diversive side effect.
> 
> Did you truly fail to recognise the distinction between those two statements and their relevance to the clip posted by basilio?




Yep purely hypothetical, notwithstanding.... Oh never mind.

Grasshopper, surely you do not miss this so very obvious point?

Or was that an amateur attempt to deflect it?


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2016)

cynic said:


> The inclusion of a specific ASFer in the scenario may have had an unfortunately diversive side effect.
> 
> Did you truly fail to recognise the distinction between those two statements and their relevance to the clip posted by basilio?




Again, what's with the multi sy la bles cynic? Keep it presidential dude.

I don't follow all your denials so haven't a clue what you and Sifu were on except the usual somewhat-smart mouth defending the dumbest of position (adapted from John Oliver).


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> Again, what's with the multi sy la bles cynic? Keep it presidential dude.
> 
> I don't follow all your denials so haven't a clue what you and Sifu were on except the usual somewhat-smart mouth defending the dumbest of position (adapted from John Oliver).



Goodness gracious, how fallacious!

One shouldn't draw conclusions non existent data grasshopper. This could be what the universe wants you to learn in this incarnation


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Goodness gracious, how fallacious!
> 
> One shouldn't draw conclusions non existent data grasshopper. This could be what the universe wants you to learn in this incarnation




Two Climate Deniers standing in a lift.
One farted and the other one sniffs.
They both shrugged because lift smells sometimes.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2016)

Are there really people who deny that we have a climate?


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Are there really people who deny that we have a climate?




Was trying to be poetic. Haiku  Whatever that is.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Are there really people who deny that we have a climate?




Well actually there are. 

I mean, there are people who reckon that all the waste and pollution, the deforestation, the damming and polluting of water sources... no effect whatsoever on the earth and its climate.


----------



## Macquack (9 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> 1/-Climate fantastists are loons
> 
> ...




I notice poor form from a so called "Moderator" of aussiestockforums who has always championed the phase "play the ball not the man" when the argument is not going your way. Practice what you preach.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2016)

Macquack said:


> I notice poor form from a so called "Moderator" of aussiestockforums who has always championed the phase "play the ball not the man" when the argument is not going your way. Practice what you preach.




The question was rhetorical quacker, to illustrate a point... A bit subtle for you I guess.


----------



## qldfrog (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> The question was rhetorical quacker, to illustrate a point... A bit subtle for you I guess.




Not the right answer wayneL, you clearly went over the line here in my opinion


----------



## Tink (10 August 2016)

Good on these politicians that have come forward and rocked the boat.

Freedom of speech sometimes means people will be offended. 
The right not to be offended should never trump the right to express your views

Freedom of speech is an important social good.

Well done, we need more brave politicians to speak out on important matters like this.


----------



## cynic (10 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> Not the right answer wayneL, you clearly went over the line here in my opinion




In my opinion, the main error was a misjudgment of the ability and/or willingness of the target audience to recognise the hypothetical context and intent of the post.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

cynic said:


> In my opinion, the main error was a misjudgment of the ability and/or willingness of the target audience to recognise the hypothetical context and intent of the post.




You are exactly correct.

IMO The Chasers were out of order and I used two hypothetical statements to illustrate the difference between the Senator's statement and the Chasers.

They tried to use irony, but the logic was fallacious.

I apologise for assuming such abilities/willingness.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

Incidently, bas outright called me stupid the other day. Interesting the luvvies didn't call him out on that.

Also interesting that it was (correctly) assumed that I didn't need Komrades to leap to my defense.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Freedom of speech sometimes means people will be offended.
> The right not to be offended should never trump the right to express your views
> 
> .




Hahaha, this coming from the member of an organisation that wants laws against blasphemy, Laws that are designed to protect their all powerful imaginary friend from words that might hurt his feelings, and an organisation that has probably banned more books and films than any other in history, oh the hypocrisy is strong in this one, lol.


----------



## Tink (10 August 2016)

You mean the organisation that set up Western Civilization, and what you enjoy today.
Our biblical worldview.

The Western Culture that you are trying to destroy?

You have no idea about Christianity and its history.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Incidently, bas outright called me stupid the other day. Interesting the luvvies didn't call him out on that.
> 
> Also interesting that it was (correctly) assumed that I didn't need Komrades to leap to my defense.




Awww... did that big bad lefty commie tree hugger hurt your feelings Sifu?

There there, no body is stupid. They just say stupid things sometimes, and some time too frequently


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2016)

Tink said:


> You mean the organisation that set up Western Civilization,
> .




No, I am talking about the catholic church, you know the one that used to behead, burn or shoot people that spoke out against it, the one you are still a member of, the one that thinks blasphemy should be a crime.




> You have no idea about Christianity and its history




I know that although you claim the right of freedom of speech, you want to put your religious concepts in a special box protected from the words of others, you want to be able to say what you like when you like, but hate that people might tell you that you are speaking rubbish, you hate the idea that other groups are finally getting on an equal footing and claim that when they have an equal say, it some how reduces your rights.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2016)

Tink said:


> You mean the organisation that set up Western Civilization, and what you enjoy today.
> Our biblical worldview.
> 
> The Western Culture that you are trying to destroy?
> ...




Round 5000.

Fight!


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> Awww... did that big bad lefty commie tree hugger hurt your feelings Sifu?
> 
> There there, no body is stupid. They just say stupid things sometimes, and some time too frequently




You didn't read my post, Grasshopper, did you?

This is possibly the reason that in general, your logic becomes so tortured. In English, my fallacious friend, words are used and  ordered to convey precise meanings.

It appears that once again, I have overestimated the abilities or willingness of at least some of my audience to comprehend that.

Tsk, standards are indeed slipping.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> You didn't read my post, Grasshopper, did you?
> 
> This is possibly the reason that in general, your logic becomes so tortured. In English, my fallacious friend, words are used and  ordered to convey precise meanings.
> 
> ...




Indeed it isn't really hard to work out what you are saying Wayne is it ?

Always... crystal clear. We understand you perfectly..


----------



## ghotib (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> You didn't read my post, Grasshopper, did you?
> 
> This is possibly the reason that in general, your logic becomes so tortured. In English, my fallacious friend, words are used and  ordered to convey precise meanings.




Yeah, like Donald Trump. Frankly Wayne, over the years your logic has become as bogus as a Liberal right winger's understanding of 21st century civilisation.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

ghotib said:


> Yeah, like Donald Trump. Frankly Wayne, over the years your logic has become as bogus as a Liberal right winger's understanding of 21st century civilisation.




It seems only those on the left have trouble with my logic. Because of the agenda perhaps.

I mean ghotib, you do see an intrinsic difference between those two statements, don't you? Surely.

Or do you just want to join the cacophony of the perpetually offended?


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Indeed it isn't really hard to work out what you are saying Wayne is it ?
> 
> Always... crystal clear. We understand you perfectly..




You tell me what you think Im saying bas. 

Cynic got it, but you of the howling Orwellian left seem to be having a little trouble.


----------



## Tisme (10 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> Round 5000.
> 
> Fight!




LOL


https://www.myinstants.com/instant/round-one-fight/


----------



## basilio (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> You tell me what you think Im saying bas.
> 
> Cynic got it, but you of the howling Orwellian left seem to be having a little trouble.




I said everything that needs to be said Wayne.

You are totally understood on this forum.


----------



## qldfrog (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> You tell me what you think Im saying bas.
> 
> Cynic got it, but you of the howling Orwellian left seem to be having a little trouble.



As I found your entry out of wack, not to say immature, if only in term of well behaved standard, I so seem to be dumped into the  "Orwellian left " which believe me is offending in itself for someone like me.
Julia would be crying...
I hope the Orwellian right can do better


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> As I found your entry out of wack, not to say immature, if only in term of well behaved standard, I so seem to be dumped into the  "Orwellian left " which believe me is offending in itself for someone like me.
> Julia would be crying...
> I hope the Orwellian right can do better




Okay let's analyse this Mr Frog.

Bas posted this, along with the Chasers video


basilio said:


> Ah what a very, very  special person we have in the Honourable Senator Leyonhielm.  I wonder how he might take some pretty pointed  very funny  comments about his good self?  Like to see
> Check it out.  Edgiest 3 minutes you'll in a long time.





So Bas was concurrently reviling the slogans (which I agree are in poor taste), but condoning the escalation of those slogans into personal insults on Leyonhielm. I saw a hypocrisy in that and posted this:



wayneL said:


> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> 1/-Climate fantastists are loons
> 
> ...




Though topical, note I did not endorse those statements, put up as hypothetical examples, using basilios name to make the point  particularly to him, as it was his post.

I was not directly insulting basilio at all.

I also highlighted basilios propensity for direct insult.

Now there is nothing immature or out of line in what I said, but as is the custom of the Komrades, you must feign extreme outrage to deflect a point which I must say is well made.. Note that none of you have addressed the actual point, just employed the epidemic of becoming offended by trifles.

So a serious question Mr Frog, dont you think it is actually you that is being puerile?

And how can you feign offense a at being lumped in with the Orwellian cultural vandals, when you are so ready to employ their sociopathic MO?


----------



## basilio (10 August 2016)

Are you for real Wayne ? Do you actually believe what you are saying ?

Truly mate stick to accusing Hilary Clinton of being a Stalinist totalitarian and Hannibal Lector a better choice than her as Prez. They have to make more sense and have more integrity than that convoluted nonsense.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Are you for real Wayne ? Do you actually believe what you are saying ?
> 
> Truly mate stick to accusing Hilary Clinton of being a Stalinist totalitarian and Hannibal Lector a better choice than her as Prez. They have to make more sense and have more integrity than that convoluted nonsense.




I now realise disernment between hyperbole and reason is beyond you... Apologies


----------



## qldfrog (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Okay let's analyse this Mr Frog.
> bla bla with exchange copy
> then
> I was not directly insulting basilio at all.



Yes you were, and denying it and digging yourself deeper today remove the excuses I might have found for you.
Quite pathetic IMHO.Talk about infantile
No need to carry on : this is not my battle and i actually like Senator Leyonhielm.Removing your hyperboles are  just a click away.


----------



## qldfrog (10 August 2016)

actually I can not: wayneL is a moderator: the irony!!!


----------



## Macquack (10 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> This is possibly the reason that in general, your logic becomes so tortured. *In English*, my *fallacious friend*, *words are used and  ordered to convey precise meanings.
> 
> *




Take a leaf out of luutzu's book who does not need a fu*king thesaurus to project his genuine heart felt beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> actually I can not: wayneL is a moderator: the irony!!!




Well, I am surprised !

Moderators are supposed to calm people down not inflame the discussions. A bit of a conflict of interest perhaps ?


----------



## cynic (11 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> Yes you were, and denying it and digging yourself deeper today remove the excuses I might have found for you.
> Quite pathetic IMHO.Talk about infantile
> No need to carry on : this is not my battle and i actually like Senator Leyonhielm.Removing your hyperboles are  just a click away.




Well, this thread is on the topic of freedom of speech, so I must respect the right of others to express their views freely.

At the same time I shall be expressing mine.

The rationale, wayneL offered, is consistent (and virtually identical) with what I perceived upon my first reading of the post in question!

Those genuinely struggling to recognise the veracity of the afore referenced rationale, have my sympathy. Others will, of course, be thoroughly entitled to my utmost contempt.

So what's your excuse?

Unwilling or unable?

Are you truly deserving of sympathy, or of contempt?

Or have I already graduated to your ignore list?


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

I have made my point clearly enough.

I take away two observations and some resolutions.

1/ You cannot reason with people that have been infected with the hypersensitivity virus that causes them to become offended by trifles, especially ideological ones.

2/ Apparently it is offensive to extend your vocabulary beyond the 250 words of an illiterate bogun.

I will continue to express my right of free speech, as all have done here.

As ever, I will choose whether to become offended and suggest you guys do the same. It's just a debate on the Internet after all.

Have a great day


----------



## qldfrog (11 August 2016)

cynic, you/wayneL can turn it as you want the use of 
"
Consider the difference netween these two statements:

1/-Climate fantastists are loons

2/ basilio is a loon.
"
was purposely done as an attack using a name: you can say #1 wo issue from me, the fact of typing #2 and then digging in is pretty sad in my opinion,
Of course, was just an example, etc  feel free to celebrate that freedom if you want.
Some people have moronic attitude, but i will never say that xxx is a moron on this forum, 
even if we all know how i could fill the xxx with names, even to stress a point or an hypothetic case; just common decency the way i have been raised.
Would you say it face to face to someone? if not: do not write it, or use hyperbole/wits if so you wish
Nothing about freedom of speech for me, more politeness/decency/intelligence of discussion.
Can you take that step back?
If you fight your own side that way, the PC brigade does not need extra support, you do the job for them.
Hopefully won't have to add you to my ignore list which is extremely short i would add


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

It was not an attack Mr Frog, the statements were clearly hypothetical as has been stressed many times now. But it was intentionally pointed.

Some years ago on this forum, someone used the very same strategy on me to make me see a hypocrisy.

I chose not to be offended and took the point in the spirit intended. 

I ask that you choose to see the point, rather than choosing to take offense.


----------



## cynic (11 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> cynic, you/wayneL can turn it as you want the use of
> "
> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> ...




Thankyou for not placing me on ignore.

I certainly understood  (and still do) wayneL's post quite differently from yourself.

You have my sympathy.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2016)

> Are you for real Wayne ? Do you actually believe what you are saying ?
> 
> Truly mate stick to accusing Hilary Clinton of being a Stalinist totalitarian and Hannibal Lector a better choice than her as Prez. They have to make more sense and have more integrity than that convoluted nonsense.



  Bas




wayneL said:


> I now realise disernment between hyperbole and reason is beyond you... Apologies




Actually no Wayne. Hyperbole is an exaggeration of a situation beyond what anyone recognizes as  actual.  ie" I've told you a million time to clean up your room."

Your depicting Hilary Clinton as a Stalinist totalitarian was character assassination. It is designed to make someone look really bad and destroy their relative validity versus  an opponent ie  Donald Trump.

__________________________________________________  _____

I don't know how many people have actually seen The Chaser clip which gave Senatar Leyondom (?) a taste of his own freedom of speech.  People can decide for themself if it is funny and in the political context of a politician proclaiming wicked camper vans are fair comment, that criticism of the sentiments on them is just wowersish.
[video]https://youtu.be/o2C8JbvXb2c[/video]


----------



## Tink (11 August 2016)

Regarding the RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

They are pushing to remove offend and insult, though some want it gone completely.


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Actually no Wayne. Hyperbole is an exaggeration of a situation beyond what anyone recognizes as  actual.  ie" I've told you a million time to clean up your room."




I'm glad you took the time to look up the dictionary definition of hyberbole bas. Unfortunately you don't seem to have grasped its meaning, because.....



> Your depicting Hilary Clinton as a Stalinist totalitarian



...was, quite obviously, "an exaggeration of a situation beyond what anyone recognizes as  actual."

Well I hope so anyway.



> was character assassination. It is designed to make someone look really bad and destroy their relative validity versus  an opponent ie  Donald Trump.




If it wasn't so absolutely ludicrous, I would be flattered that you thought I could influence an **American** election from my  garret in semi-rural Qld, **Australia**.

...and you should look up the words, irony and hypocrisy, because, like,  ummm.... You have a whole thread, "designed to make someone look really bad and destroy their relative validity versus  an opponent ie  Hillary Clinton".

Thanks for the belly laugh bas, made my day.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> Not the right answer wayneL, you clearly went over the line here in my opinion




There was nothing wrong with that statement to illustrate a point. Bas and Wayne have spewed worse in the climate thread. 
I found it more offensive that we turned it into something more offensive then it was and then group attacked. I've seen these $hit smearing "I'm outraged"  tactics to discredit someone before.


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2016)

qldfrog said:


> "
> Consider the difference netween these two statements:
> 
> 1/-Climate fantastists are loons
> ...




Don't you just love how trolling gets the blood flowing.  

Personally I don't troll or inflame coz I think it's beneath me.


----------



## cynic (11 August 2016)

basilio said:


> ...I don't know how many people have actually seen The Chaser clip which gave Senatar Leyondom (?) a taste of his own freedom of speech.  People can decide for themself if it is funny and in the political context of a politician proclaiming wicked camper vans are fair comment, that criticism of the sentiments on them is just wowersish.




I did see that clip and am of the opinion that, on this occasion, your endorsement of it was misguided. There is a definite distinction between that politician's proclamations and the sordidly offensive behaviour of those choosing to grossly distort his message through the application of faulty logic. 

In my opinion, a response of some form, alerting yourself and others to an important logical distinction, was most definitely warranted.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2016)

Wayne at the  obvious risk of repeating myself there are no mysteries with you.  You are totally crystal clear.

Being able to compare Hilary Clinton (unfavourably !)  to Hannibal Lector and a Stalinist totalitarian and then saying "Nah I wasn't trashing them, folks." is so you. 

Perhaps you should put your hand up to be Donald Trumps media advisor ? They are certainly looking for someone with your inimitable skills. You can easily do it from your cosy garret.  That's what the internet is all about isn't it ? You are clearly wasted on ASF.


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

basilio said:


> Wayne at the  obvious risk of repeating myself there are no mysteries with you.  You are totally crystal clear.
> 
> Being able to compare Hilary Clinton (unfavourably !)  to Hannibal Lector and a Stalinist totalitarian and then saying "Nah I wasn't trashing them, folks." is so you.
> 
> Perhaps you should put your hand up to be Donald Trumps media advisor ? They are certainly looking for someone with your inimitable skills. You can easily do it from your cosy garret.  That's what the internet is all about isn't it ? You are clearly wasted on ASF.




Oh I was trashing her alright basilio, she's poison mate.

You see this is yet another example of where you have completely missed my meaning. Yes I am crystal clear, but because of your inability to clearly comprehend, you miss the actual true clarity of what I say.

It makes sense now, there is consistency in your sociopathic, dystopian ideals. You see things via the Orwellian prism, utterly consistent with your poisonous ideology, even though it is so grotesquely distorted from the original intent.

This is why you sre comfotable with children, as is in 350.org's no pressure video, being collateral damage in the pursuit of the totalitarian dystopia you crave.

It's be an interesting discussion bas, I have learned something.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2016)

So shall we really start to flame Wayne ? Why not. If it's good for the goose  why not the gander.

Yeah you are poisonous. Your capacity to distort and denigrate is pretty much unparalleled on this forum. You particularly remind me of one obnoxious bully back at school whose claim to fame was giving kidney punches to year 7 kids and saying they were love taps. Real special character. 

Your the bully in chief on this forum Wayne.  Whether it's people whose views you can't abide or politicians  you equally despise you trash them with impunity - and then call it "hyperbole" or "exaggeration". 

As if no one could possibly take you seriously when you called James Hanson a psychopath or Hilary Clinton worse than Hannibal Lector or rip me to shreds.  What rubbish.

I wasn't joking when I said you should be working for Donald Trump. You would make a fine team.

So.  Want to keep going and totally trash this forum ?


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

Well the difference is I deal in observable fact, even if flowered up a bit.

You either are incapable or unwilling to do so (as has been noted).

The other difference is that I would be happy to have a robust debate and laugh in person with you over a beer, despite our ideological differences, but you are consumed by malevolent feelings. You could never being yourself to meet in person.

That's an invitation BTW. I will be in Melbourne in  December if you live there?


----------



## wayneL (11 August 2016)

Oh, and willingness to challenge your dogma doesnt make me bully.

That I disagree with you doesnt make me a bully anymore than you disagreeing with me, makes you a bully.

I have never used my mod status, to silence anyone, even if some have tried to use that to suggest I should not have an opinion. In fact I haven't performed any moderating action for quite some time, apart from spam and suchlike.

So again, you miss the mark by a wide margin, bas.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2016)

Read the title of the thread peeps. Ohhhhhh the irony of it all


----------



## DB008 (12 August 2016)

dutchie said:


> My respect to the victims of the Islamic terrorist attack on the journalists of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.
> 
> My condolences to all their families.





No other religion gets special treatment like Islam.

We are self censoring ourselves.

This is crazy. How can a man-made fantasy (Islam), get such special coverage and laws passed for their benefit (worldwide) ??? I think the violence that comes with Islam has something to do with it.....



> *ACT parliament passes religious vilification laws​*
> 
> Vilification on the grounds of religion is now illegal and in serious cases could result in a criminal conviction with a fine of up to $7500, under laws passed by the ACT parliament on Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tink (12 August 2016)

Did they send a memo to the ABC?

How about Julian Porteous in Tasmania who was taken to Court by the Greens for writing a book about Marriage as it stands in law today.

The problem is the lawyers are getting fatter, and freedom of speech is getting smaller.

People now are no longer allowed to speak, the lawyer speaks for them.

A fractured society, in my view.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2016)

DB008 said:


> No other religion gets special treatment like Islam.
> 
> .....





Such as?

Freedom of religion laws protect all religions. I am totally against all religions, and I wish people would give them up. But I am not for any laws that restrict peoples ability to practice their faith, and I not for anything that unfairly discriminates against people because of their religion.



> We are self censoring ourselves



.

How?



> This is crazy. How can a man-made fantasy (Islam), get such special coverage and laws passed for their benefit (worldwide) ??? I think the violence that comes with Islam has something to do with it




Christianity is the most privileged religion in Australia as far as I can see.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Did they send a memo to the ABC?
> 
> How about Julian Porteous in Tasmania who was taken to Court by the Greens for writing a book about Marriage as it stands in law today.
> 
> ...




I would be interested to hear what Tink's definition of "Freedom of speech" is.


----------



## Tink (12 August 2016)

Our heritage is Christian, VC.

As much as you dislike hearing it, our separation of Church and State was set up by a Christian.

I have already said, I am a conservative, small governments, liberty, life, responsibility and accountability.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I would be interested to hear what Tink's definition of "Freedom of speech" is.




care to give your thoughts on what you think it is tink.



Tink said:


> our separation of Church and State was set up by a Christian.
> 
> .




How do you know?

Are you just assuming that all people from the past are Christian? you are good  at that.

even if they were Christian, the wording of our constitution shows they had no intention of creating a "Christian nation", and purposefully put in wording to prevent any religion being in control of government, and protected the rights of all people to practice or not practice any religion.

If we are a Christian nation, please point me to where the words "Christian, Christ, Bible" or any other such references to Christianity are in our constitution. 

Just because some of our fore fathers had some crazy opinions doesn't mean our nation is that or should be defined by that other wise you could equally describe us as the following.

Australia's heritage is Racist.
Australia's heritage is misogynistic.
Australia's heritage is xenophobic. 

etc etc, offcourse some of our forefathers had opinions and believed things that were nonsense, Christianity is just one of those crazy things some of them believed.


----------



## luutzu (12 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Our heritage is Christian, VC.
> 
> As much as you dislike hearing it, our separation of Church and State was set up by a Christian.
> 
> I have already said, I am a conservative, small governments, liberty, life, responsibility and accountability.




I think the moment those founding fathers thought to separate the Church's sticky fingers from the State coffers, they're no longer Christian of the faithful kind. They'd be better described as Atheistic politician respecting no Pope and no Bishop, working for no God but the people alone 

How does being a religious person fit in with most of your values there?

Conservative... OK, I guess.

Small govt? Liberty?, life? responsibility? Accountability?

Religion, with an all powerful, all seeing, all spying, hardazz and not at all forgiving god; one who create you and have plan for all of you... that whatever happen in the world, it's to God's plan...

That's the biggest, baddest form of government there is.


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think the moment those founding fathers thought to separate the Church's sticky fingers from the State coffers, they're no longer Christian of the faithful kind. They'd be better described as Atheistic politician respecting no Pope and no Bishop, working for no God but the people alone
> 
> How does being a religious person fit in with most of your values there?
> 
> ...




Our constitution drew heavily on the American version .....law 3001


----------



## nioka (12 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> Our constitution drew heavily on the American version .....law 3001




Can I suggest that our constitution drew heavily on the 10 commandments. I suggest that when society ignores these then we are in deep split! That was a Christian influence that should even be a code of behaviour for atheists. 

There would be no problem with freedom of speech issues if the 10 commandments code were observed.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2016)

nioka said:


> Can I suggest that our constitution drew heavily on the 10 commandments. I suggest that when society ignores these then we are in deep split! That was a Christian influence that should even be a code of behaviour for atheists.
> 
> There would be no problem with freedom of speech issues if the 10 commandments code were observed.




The Ten Commandments??? Most of them are rubbish rules, and the only ones that have any real value eg thy shalt not kill, are pretty much Common place among all societies.

some of the Ten Commandments actually breach the constitution, so I can't see why you would say it was based on them.

And as far as freedom of speech goes, the Ten Commandments doesn't even allow freedom of thought, eg thy shalt not covet, and it directly outlaws speaking against God, so no freedom of speech there.


----------



## bellenuit (12 August 2016)

nioka said:


> Can I suggest that our constitution drew heavily on the 10 commandments. I suggest that when society ignores these then we are in deep split! That was a Christian influence that should even be a code of behaviour for atheists.
> 
> There would be no problem with freedom of speech issues if the 10 commandments code were observed.




Are you for real?

Start at the 1st commandment....

_Thou shalt have no other gods before me_

There goes freedom of speech. Cannot believe in or suggest that there may be another God other than the God of Abraham.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> Start at the 1st commandment....
> 
> ...




Yep, and the 2nd and 3rd bury freedom of speech even more,

2, thy shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3, thy shalt not use the lords name in vain.


Seriously, how can anyone think these rules inspired the constitution, I seriously think that people that go around saying the Ten Commandments are the height of moral thinking haven't ever really read them, or give them any thought, like a software license they just scroll to the bottom and click accept.


----------



## bellenuit (13 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Seriously, how can anyone think these rules inspired the constitution, I seriously think that people that go around saying the Ten Commandments are the height of moral thinking haven't ever really read them, or give them any thought, like a software license they just scroll to the bottom and click accept.




Like those that going round saying God is infinitely merciful and in the same breath saying he will send you to Hell for all eternity should you not believe in him or obey his commands. They simply do not really put any thought into the words they use, just mouth them vacuously. In this case "infinitely merciful".


----------



## DB008 (13 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Such as?
> 
> Freedom of religion laws protect all religions. I am totally against all religions, and I wish people would give them up. But I am not for any laws that restrict peoples ability to practice their faith, and I not for anything that unfairly discriminates against people because of their religion.




Look at Islam. It gets special treatment. If I mock or make funny remarks about any other religion, they shrug it off as banter. Do it with Islam and they want to behead you.

If this picture was reversed and it was Christianity, they would be uproar. They only got a slap on the wrist. Sad.



​


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2016)

DB008 said:


> Look at Islam. It gets special treatment.. Do it with Islam and they want to behead you.
> 
> .




How is that special treatment under the law, it is still illegal for them to actually behead you, they don't get special treatment, if they did kill some one they would be jailed.

But anyway, aren't you guys fans of freedom of speech, you want people to be able to say what they like regardless of who it offends, you should be supporting peoples rights to wave such signs around.



> If I mock or make funny remarks about any other religion, they shrug it off as banter




No, there are buddists and Christians that would kill you, or even burn you alive, it still happens today.




> If this picture was reversed and it was Christianity, they would be uproar. They only got a slap on the wrist. Sad





Ever seen the signs that the west borrow Baptist church wave around? look at these darling upstanding Christian children.

If you think Islam holds the patent on crazy, you are dead wrong.

are all Christians like the westborrow Baptist church,... No
Are all Muslims extremists,..... No.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2016)

Here is a Christian preacher calling for gays to be executed.

But yeah, only muslims preach hate hey,


----------



## Tink (13 August 2016)

Agree, DB, and the reason 18C should be removed or changed.

This country was not built on offence.

It is being gutted from within.

*Be the hero of your life, not the victim.*

George Orwell had it exactly right when he said: 

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, DB, and the reason 18C should be removed or changed.




I think the question about 18C is whether it is preventing factual discussion of issues. 

The exemptions to a complaint under 18C are



> 18D  Exemptions
> 
> Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
> 
> ...




Personally I think that this allows civil debate while preventing people being subject to hate speech.

It seems to have worked well to date, I don't see any need to repeal it.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2016)

Tink said:


> This country was not built on offence.




Yes, yes Tink, we all know you think times were better when women knew their place, and you could slap you secretary on the ass and she wouldn't say anything, and you could call a chink a chink and a N####r a N####r and no one would bat an eye, a time when gays stayed in the closet for fear of abuse, a time when every one that takes offence to you just kept their mouth shut because they knew their place, but still society tip tied around your feeling and made sure not to offend your God.

----------

I have asked it before and you always ignore the question, but I will ask again "what exactly do you want to do or say that you currently feel you can't?" 

How is you personal freedom of speech being taken away?


----------



## Tink (13 August 2016)

Wow, you portray Australia a great place.
So you run on the leftard mentality that we are racist.
Put up the communist red flag.

I am for freedom of speech and liberty, what this country was founded on.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-...-remove-words-from-discrimination-act/7732176

And who told you that -- your grandmother?
I think listening to the elderly has a lot more information about our history.

So why have we got 'Violence against women' now, if it is suppose to be better?


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, yes Tink, we all know you think times were better when women knew their place, and you could slap you secretary on the ass and she wouldn't say anything, and you could call a chink a chink and a N####r a N####r and no one would bat an eye, a time when gays stayed in the closet for fear of abuse, a time when every one that takes offence to you just kept their mouth shut because they knew their place, but still society tip tied around your feeling and made sure not to offend your God.
> 
> ----------
> 
> ...





Dude, it's "Asian a chink"; and "an African American a N.."


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Wow, you portray Australia a great place.
> So you run on the leftard mentality that we are racist.
> Put up the communist red flag.
> 
> ...





Racist and genocidal. 

Australia was founded on a lot of things, freedom and liberty came a distant 1000th. 

That's not to say that Australia or Europeans are any more racist or genocidal than other races... All nation states came about through violence and murder. That's just facts.

Best to see it for what it is and learn to not condone that kind of superiority complexes. 

History, genocide, nation-building and colonialism didn't end when color photographies was invented. They're still going on in our digital age. 

And it goes on because most of us still belief in the superiority of "our" religion, our culture, our race over other barbarians.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> Our constitution drew heavily on the American version .....law 3001




So we follow the Yanks some 120 years after their independence? 

We've improved on that timeframe though ey. It's only 5 or 10 years before our dear leaders copy their dear leaders.

Though to be fair, Parkes and friends seem to be smarter about following... nowadays ours tend to copy things whether it works out well over there or not.


----------



## Value Collector (14 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Wow, you portray Australia a great place.
> So you run on the leftard mentality that we are racist.
> Put up the communist red flag.
> 
> ...




Australia is a great place, and it was probably a great place back in the day too, if you were an educated, white, English speaking, straight male, now it's great for a broader group.

Was Australia a racist place? I don't know, what year did the aboriginals get to vote?

Yes, you are for freedom of speech, unless the person is talking about a topic you don't agree with.

I do talk to my grandmother almost every week, and yes she is pretty racist, and so are a lot of her peers, she's a great person, but will just make random racist comments about how she doesn't like there being so many Asians etc, 

We probably have less violence against women now, it's just not taboo to talk about it any more.

But anyway, your religious text condones violence against women, so what's your problem.


----------



## Tink (15 August 2016)

David Leyonhjelm: NSW Senator lodges complaint over journalist’s claim he is an ‘angry white male’

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89

_A FEDERAL politician has lodged a formal complaint before the Human Rights Commission under race hate laws for being publicly abused as an “angry white male”.

In the first complaint of its kind for the HRC under the controversial section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, NSW Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has taken action against a journalist for what he claimed were remarks insulting to white men.

Under Section 18C, it is unlawful to commit an act which would reasonably offend or insult someone because of their race, colour, national or *ethnic origin.

The Daily Telegraph has learned the complaint was submitted last week following an article published by Fairfax media in which Mr Leyonhjelm was described as “boorish and gormless as a result of being an angry white male’’.

The article was critical of the senator for his purist views on free speech and his campaign to repeal Section 18C.

Mr Leyonhjelm is using the provisions he wants to abolish to launch the action in a bid to prove what he said was the absurdity of the law.

He said the case would be a test for the HRC and comes as pressure begins to build again inside the government to re-examine repealing the law due to concerns it stifles free speech.
_


----------



## qldfrog (15 August 2016)

Tink said:


> David Leyonhjelm: NSW Senator lodges complaint over journalist’s claim he is an ‘angry white male’
> .....
> The Daily Telegraph has learned the complaint was submitted last week following an article published by Fairfax media in which Mr Leyonhjelm was described as “boorish and gormless as a result of being an angry white male’’.
> 
> ...



Nice one in my opinion


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Are all Muslims extremists,..... No.
> 
> View attachment 67736




From my viewpoint I think it's a mistake to equate Christian Lite to Muslim Lite.

Muslims seem quite resigned to the wrath of God delivered by the hand of man, almost satisfied on occasions? Of course that is how people behave when they have been enslaved in a relentlessly moribund society...... 

......perhaps Islam is the perdition where sinful Christians go after they died if they haven't repented, the female Muslim getting the worst end of the stick ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> From my viewpoint I think it's a mistake to equate Christian Lite to Muslim Lite.
> 
> Muslims seem quite resigned to the wrath of God delivered by the hand of man, almost satisfied on occasions?




As do some Christians, I wouldn't call them muslim lite though, muslim lite would be the ones that don't really take it to seriously some are even just "Cultural Muslims" Muslims are a lot closer to jews in that regard, where you can have a person describe them selves as an "Atheist Jew", they don't really believe much of the god stuff, but live as a Jew and their jewish culture is important to them.

I actually personally know a muslim who considers himself an atheist, but still follows Halal diet etc, and part takes in Ramadan. Its weird, but just because some one describes them selves as muslim doesn't mean they cheer on ISIS.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As do some Christians, I wouldn't call them muslim lite though, muslim lite would be the ones that don't really take it to seriously some are even just "Cultural Muslims" Muslims are a lot closer to jews in that regard, where you can have a person describe them selves as an "Atheist Jew", they don't really believe much of the god stuff, but live as a Jew and their jewish culture is important to them.
> 
> I actually personally know a muslim who considers himself an atheist, but still follows Halal diet etc, and part takes in Ramadan. Its weird, but just because some one describes them selves as muslim doesn't mean they cheer on ISIS.




I agree, I think a lot of so called religious people aren't religious at all but fear isolation from family and friends and so go along with the religious stuff for the sake of appearances and family harmony.

Religion is mainly inherited. There wouldn't be all that many who have been brought up in non religious environments and willingly converted later, although Yusuf Islam is an exception.


----------



## McLovin (15 August 2016)

Tink said:


> David Leyonhjelm: NSW Senator lodges complaint over journalist’s claim he is an ‘angry white male’
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89
> 
> ...




He's not offended, so if he wins it's proof that he's not a reasonable person. Not that you need a court judgement to prove that.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> He's not offended, so if he wins it's proof that he's not a reasonable person. Not that you need a court judgement to prove that.




I disagree.

It is a reasonable point and a reasonable way to make that point, in the face of an unreasonacle statute, enforced with unreasonable bias.


----------



## McLovin (15 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> I disagree.
> 
> It is a reasonable point and a reasonable way to make that point, in the face of an unreasonacle statute, enforced with unreasonable bias.




He has said he's not offended. The case law to date has applied the reasonable person test. If he's not offended, but he wins the case then the conclusion is he's not a reasonable person.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a cushy government job that gave us plenty of free time for a bit of vexatious litigation.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> Dude, it's "Asian a chink"; and "an African American a N.."




I thought the Chinese were the chinks? I think North Viet were chinkonese originally too (took their bat and ball and migrated from some coastal place in China) ? The name came from the British Empire borrowing the cheen-ke  name the Indians use for the Chinese ...


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As do some Christians, I wouldn't call them muslim lite though, muslim lite would be the ones that don't really take it to seriously some are even just "Cultural Muslims" Muslims are a lot closer to jews in that regard, where you can have a person describe them selves as an "Atheist Jew", they don't really believe much of the god stuff, but live as a Jew and their jewish culture is important to them.
> 
> I actually personally know a muslim who considers himself an atheist, but still follows Halal diet etc, and part takes in Ramadan. Its weird, but just because some one describes them selves as muslim doesn't mean they cheer on ISIS.




Yeah I have a mate who fesses up to being Muslim ..... drinks, swears, eats ham and cheese toasties, celebrates Xmas, not sure if he fasts or not, but he's a good fella apart from those undesirable habits.


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> He's not offended, so if he wins it's proof that he's not a reasonable person. Not that you need a court judgement to prove that.




any publicity is ........


----------



## luutzu (15 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> I thought the Chinese were the chinks? I think North Viet were chinkonese originally too (took their bat and ball and migrated from some coastal place in China) ? The name came from the British Empire borrowing the cheen-ke  name the Indians use for the Chinese ...




They all look the same don't they? 

Kinda like calling all White people White people. Some better-bred Whiteys might take offence being grouped in with the French and English, but ah well, 

Don't know what "history" you're reading there, but we Viets came about when the Dragon King met the Phoenix angel, made love (somehow), laid 100 eggs - the eggs were 50 awesome dragon prince and 50 phoenix princesses... and they either married each other or married some mortals. 

As to the Chinese connection... I think some Chi'n or Han general was on the southern frontiers when China has one of its change of mandate and the dude decided it's safer to stay south with the barbarian Viets.

He married into the local chieftain's family, taught them how to civilised other barbarians and savages further south... then just like a disease them sons of dragons and phoenixes spread their wings and stole land and women from the Red River Delta to the Mekong's. 

They would have saved more barbarians if it weren't for the 1000 year Chinese takeover and usual civil wars... then of course the French thought to follow that master plan to take over Laos and Cambodia to save them brown folks from themselves.

--------

I had always thought the slang "chink" came from the (Manchurian) Ching Chinese (ones with pony tails). That or the more "Chi'n" State of the First Emperor - i.e. the people of Chi'n.


----------



## luutzu (15 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As do some Christians, I wouldn't call them muslim lite though, muslim lite would be the ones that don't really take it to seriously some are even just "Cultural Muslims" Muslims are a lot closer to jews in that regard, where you can have a person describe them selves as an "Atheist Jew", they don't really believe much of the god stuff, but live as a Jew and their jewish culture is important to them.
> 
> I actually personally know a muslim who considers himself an atheist, but still follows Halal diet etc, and part takes in Ramadan. Its weird, but just because some one describes them selves as muslim doesn't mean they cheer on ISIS.




I guess it's one of those cultural/traditional practices where we just do things because that's how it was done, not because we've read up on the thing. 

I mean, people could just turn up to Church or Mosque because that's what their family have done; eat Halal or Kosher food... without having done their homework and read up on the religious texts and all them history and tradition.


----------



## Tink (16 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> I disagree.
> 
> It is a reasonable point and a reasonable way to make that point, in the face of an unreasonacle statute, enforced with unreasonable bias.




+1

Good on these brave politicians that are standing up for our freedom of speech.

As stated -

_Mr Leyonhjelm said he wasn’t personally offended by the article but said under Section 18C he didn’t have to be because the law as it stood meant that the offence be given rather than taken…_


----------



## sr20de (16 August 2016)

Truth and political correctness cannot coexist, you either have what is true and right, or you have what's socially acceptable.

http://viralswim.com/political-correctness-will-kill-you/


----------



## luutzu (16 August 2016)

sr20de said:


> Truth and political correctness cannot coexist, you either have what is true and right, or you have what's socially acceptable.
> 
> http://viralswim.com/political-correctness-will-kill-you/




Not true.

If a truth is spoken, no reason or logic or political correctness can stop it. 

It's weak and false arguments that does cannot stand up to scrutiny that then blame political correctness for its failure and idiocy. 

Take that argument from that link about Paris and Europe being lost due to political correctness. 

How?

It's lost because there are terrorist attacks on its soil? Attach by terrorists?

For the political correctness fluff to be true, it must follow that all Muslims/Arabs are terrorist. Are all Muslim and Arab terrorist? Is Islam evil and will teach its follower violence?

You can't say Muslim and Arabs are this and that, not because it's politically incorrect, but because such beliefs have no basis in facts. And just because a person believe something does not mean it is true.

Or take this conspiracy about the Mainstream Media and its political correctness in favour of Muslims and Arabs. Seriously?

If the mainstream media "favour", or even neutral, in its reporting of the wars in the ME... these wars would have ended years ago - not expanding to ever wider territories as is currently the case.

How?

Why is it that we in the West believe Islam and Muslims are evil terrorists? All of them? Or most of them and those few who aren't evil terrorists aren't really Muslims... 

Why do we believe that?

Why don't we believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, overwhelming superpowers like the West unleashing its dogs of wars on Arab land... that that might have something to do with Arabs and Muslims becoming terrorists. 

Why don't we in the West believe that maybe when millions of Muslims have been killed, tens of millions more displaced and are homeless... that maybe they're the victims of war and terrorism instead of all being blood thirsty terrorist. 

Put these simple facts together and you know the Media is politically correct, just not in the way they're made out to be. That is, the Media serve certain interests... and but those aren't the interests of the Muslims or the poor Westerners.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

Grasshopper, If I say that excessive immigration from non congruent cultures, (such as from some Islamic countries) will impact negatively on our western culture and diminish my enjoyment and practice of the same, that would be seen as unPC and possibly even disingenuously howled down as racist.

But it is the truth.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

In fact, political correctness is speech designed to disguise true feelings. What someone thinks and says in private, vs what one says in public are often diametrically opposed, vis a vis, a lie.

While what someone thinks and says in private may not* sometimes *be supportable by fact, or even reasonable, for them it is their truth.

For example, many in the Islamic community speak *their* truth, but it could never be in a month of Sundays be considered politically correct (curiously they are never criticized for that by the PC brigade). Astonioshingly, ironically, it is considered politically incorrect to bag out this political incorrectness.

Grasshopper, PC is nothing more than a manipulation of the cultural narrative by the putative "elites" for political gain.


----------



## luutzu (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Grasshopper, If I say that excessive immigration from non congruent cultures, (such as from some Islamic countries) will impact negatively on our western culture and diminish my enjoyment and practice of the same, that would be seen as unPC and possibly even disingenuously howled down as racist.
> 
> But it is the truth.




It is your truth, not truth as supported by facts and reason.

I mean, do all "Western" people act and think alike? Are there no criminal and nutjobs in Western culture? Are all things Western good and noble?

So while we're all free to believe certain people, certain career and profession, certain religion etc. etc. are superior to this and that other traits and colour... just don't demean and apply those beliefs if it harm other people's right to also believe in the superiority, or at least the non-inferiority of their identities.

It's fine and good to see ourselves and our everything highly... it's another thing altogether to also believe that for us to be good mean the other non-us must be terrible and bad.

Genocide and endless war are fed by such believes. So while we might like to think and believe in our greatness, we might just be useful idiots in other people's plan to use our cash and have our names to the weapons that kill others - all to "defend" our way of life and whatever.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> It is your truth, not truth as supported by facts and reason.
> 
> I mean, do all "Western" people act and think alike? Are there no criminal and nutjobs in Western culture? Are all things Western good and noble?
> 
> ...





Nice work  Luutzu..


----------



## luutzu (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> In fact, political correctness is speech designed to disguise true feelings. What someone thinks and says in private, vs what one says in public are often diametrically opposed, vis a vis, a lie.
> 
> While what someone thinks and says in private may not* sometimes *be supportable by fact, or even reasonable, for them it is their truth.
> 
> ...




That could be political correctness, or it's just common sense.

And no, nobody like racism and prejudices - from any group or race. So just because them PC idiots stop White or Christian people from harassing those they don't like doesn't mean it's alright for the other race/identity to do likewise - and it doesn't mean rights are being taken away either.

Well, everyone's rights are taken away to some degree. The price we pay for living in a civilised society. Can't have everyone walking around shooting whoever they don't like just because it's their "rights" to do so.


----------



## McLovin (17 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> any publicity is ........




Yeah. I guess a guy like Leyonhelm needs to constantly be jumping up and down saying "look at me, look at me". What a waste of time. A first year law student could tell him why his complaint will fail. They could also tell you why the complaint against Bolt was successful.


----------



## Tink (17 August 2016)

Freedom of speech is a human right for ALL of us.

It should be sorted on the ground, not via lawyers. 

What is happening to this country?

Freedom of speech is a social good.

----------------------------------------

_It appears that nowadays if you disagree with something, you hate them/it.

This is an appalling misuse of this very emotional word._


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Freedom of speech is a human right for ALL of us.




So in your opinion, what is "Freedom of speech"?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Grasshopper,If I say that excessive immigration from non congruent cultures, (such as from some Islamic countries) will impact negatively on our western culture and diminish my enjoyment and practice of the same , that would be seen as unPC and possibly even disingenuously howled down as racist.
> 
> But it is the truth.




I think that statement is politically correct, you are making a claim though, which you would have the burden of proof and need to be able to justify with supporting evidence.

To me, a non politically correct state would be one that inflames emotion and derails the conversation away from the key ideas.

eg, If I say that excessive immigration of rag heads, will destroy our aussie culture and I hate walking around and seeing gooks and rag heads every where.

Political correctness is just about getting your point across without trying to humiliate or offend anyone that you don't have to.



> In fact, political correctness is speech designed to disguise true feelings.




Only if those feelings are overtly racist, sexist or some other discrimination.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Political correctness is just about getting your point across without trying to humiliate or offend anyone that you don't have to.




The way PC seems to operate in this country is that we should not make disparaging remarks against any minority regardless of whether they are true or not.

PC deflects attention away from the real points at issue and turns it into an attack against the bringers of bad news instead.

e.g. the Bill Leak cartoon. Certainly that cartoon generalised about the behaviour of indigenous parents, but the fact still remains that indigenous people especially youth are over represented in the justice system, and we need to find out why. Do we say that the justice system is at fault, or do we say that parental responsibility leaves a lot to be desired in this community ? Why are young kids getting into trouble instead of doing homework or playing sport ? How much are the parents to blame ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The way PC seems to operate in this country is that we should not make disparaging remarks against any minority regardless of whether they are true or not.




no I think its more about not tarring entire groups with the same brush, and getting a real issues rather than making things personal.

eg. don't make out Muslims in general are terrorists or aboriginals are dole bulgers.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

luutzu said:


> It is your truth, not truth as supported by facts and reason.
> 
> I mean, do all "Western" people act and think alike? Are there no criminal and nutjobs in Western culture? Are all things Western good and noble?
> 
> ...




I don't disagree with that. But you must agree that political correctness is not always about diplomacy and avoiding war. PC definitely had a place in international diplomacy and in intranational politics, but does does it have a place in normal intercourse between us plebeians?

It might surprise you that I think it does, but with caveats.


For example, I think society should collectively decide that racist name calling is uncool and that there is a role for government in education in that regard, but not on creating statutes. There is a fine line between cultivating liberty  and equality and thought policing.

Someone who drops the N word, should be seen as an 4sshole, but not a criminal.

To use an analogy, adultery has a potentially greater capacity for psychological harm  than calling someone a choge or a coon, yet out government is blase' about one, yet creates a criminal offense out of the other.

...and understand, I use those words for effect in argument and don't condone their use.


----------



## McLovin (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Someone who drops the N word, should be seen as an 4sshole, but not a criminal.
> 
> To use an analogy, adultery has a potentially greater capacity for psychological harm  than calling someone a choge or a coon, yet out government is blase' about one, yet creates a criminal offense out of the other.






What criminal offence?


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> What criminal offence?




18c


----------



## McLovin (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> 18c




I've looked. No criminal offence there.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> I've looked. No criminal offence there.




But one can be prosecuted under 18c correcr?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> But one can be prosecuted under 18c correcr?




18C does mention the word "offence", but "criminal" implies you can be sent to gaol if "convicted", and there is no such penalty under 18C.


----------



## McLovin (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> But one can be prosecuted under 18c correcr?




No. They haven't been charged with a crime. How can they be prosecuted? The plaintiff is seeking relief, the DPP/CPP and the police have no part in it.


----------



## Ves (17 August 2016)

18C - Is it a crime?

See link below.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/alan-tudge-incorrect-on-racial-disrcimination-act/5378960


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

Ves said:


> 18C - Is it a crime?
> 
> See link below.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/alan-tudge-incorrect-on-racial-disrcimination-act/5378960




Thanks, that clarifies the nature of the "offense".

Does that detracr from my point?  I wouldn't have though so..


----------



## Ves (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Thanks, that clarifies the nature of the "offense".
> 
> Does that detracr from my point?  I wouldn't have though so..




Ignoring the debate about whether it is a criminal or not  your point isn't really relevant to 18C or 18D (don't ignore that section because it's important).



> *Someone who drops the N word*, should be seen as an 4sshole, but not a criminal.
> 
> To use an analogy, adultery has a potentially greater capacity for psychological harm than calling someone a *choge or a coon*, yet out government is blase' about one, yet creates a criminal offense out of the other.
> 
> ...and understand, I use those words for effect in argument and don't condone their use.




The problem is that calling someone a N****** or a "Choge" or a "coon"  would not give a court of law any basis for upholding a civil judgment against an individual.  It'd get thrown out instantly.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately hyperbolic or you don't understand how 18C works?

My only suggestion is to go and read the current case law.

You'd have to say something with a lot of gravity for it to lose an 18C case.   

The high profile Andrew Bolt case for example:   he'd probably have lost a Defamation case too. But as I understand it the plaintiff went down the 18C path.


----------



## Ves (17 August 2016)

From the case of Creek v Cairns Post which was an 18C case,  Justice Kiefel said that the conduct in question must cause:

'profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights'

This was heard at Federal Court level. So I'd assume it has a pretty strong precedent that future cases had to follow  (it was back in 2001).


----------



## luutzu (17 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> I don't disagree with that. But you must agree that political correctness is not always about diplomacy and avoiding war. PC definitely had a place in international diplomacy and in intranational politics, but does does it have a place in normal intercourse between us plebeians?
> 
> It might surprise you that I think it does, but with caveats.
> 
> ...




Given that a person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law; how many criminals has them statutes against name calling made? What coloured and otherwise minority people could afford to hire a lawyer over name calling? Cheaper to go Bruce Lee on their azz. 

Yea, it's a stupid law [I haven't read it, but it sounds stupid from what you said]... but you know, pollies got to appear to be doing something for them pay packages.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> no I think its more about not tarring entire groups with the same brush, and getting a real issues rather than making things personal.




If you were aboriginal would you be taking Bill Leak to court over his cartoon ?

If you are a non aboriginal person on the jury, would you "convict" him under 18C ?


----------



## McLovin (17 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Ignoring the debate about whether it is a criminal or not  your point isn't really relevant to 18C or 18D (don't ignore that section because it's important).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's the point that is lost on the Bolt cheer squad. He didn't lose his case because he gave his opinion, he lost his case because the "facts" he invented to reach his conclusions were laughably wrong.

Example...

Bolt said...



> “how can Graham Atkinson be co-chair of the Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group when his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman?”




In fact...



> Dr Atkinson is an academic who lives in Victoria. He is the brother of Graham Atkinson, who also gave evidence in the proceeding. Dr Atkinson’s parents are both Aboriginal persons and descendants of the Yorta Yorta and Dja Dja Wurrung tribal groups of central Victoria and the Murray Goulburn Region. All four of Dr Atkinson’s grandparents were of Aboriginal descent. All of his great grandparents were of Aboriginal descent except one of his great grandfathers, Thomas Shadrach James. Thomas James was born in Mauritius and was of Indian heritage. He arrived in Australia in the late 1800s and worked as a teacher in Aboriginal communities where he met and married Dr Atkinson’s great grandmother.




Section 18D provides plenty of protection for free speech. The more insightful observation is not the incidents that have gone to court, but the all the ones that haven't. That Bill Leak cartoon, for example, _would_ be protected by s18D.


----------



## Value Collector (17 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If you were aboriginal would you be taking Bill Leak to court over his cartoon ?
> 
> If you are a non aboriginal person on the jury, would you "convict" him under 18C ?




I actually can't see much wrong with the cartoon, I think it is making a point about parenting and alcohol abuse more than race, I can see a similar cartoon being used to make a point about white bogans.

I am not familiar enough with the situation in the territory to know whether his points were fair or not, but I don't take it as a racism inspired thing, I can see how a person predisposed to racist fees might take it as confirmation their racist views are correct though.

If I were on a jury I would do my best to understand the spirit of the law, listen to both sides evidence, and then make a decision.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I actually can't see much wrong with the cartoon, I think it is making a point about parenting and alcohol abuse more than race, I can see a similar cartoon being used to make a point about white bogans.
> 
> I am not familiar enough with the situation in the territory to know whether his points were fair or not, but I don't take it as a racism inspired thing, I can see how a person predisposed to racist fees might take it as confirmation their racist views are correct though.
> 
> If I were on a jury I would do my best to understand the spirit of the law, listen to both sides evidence, and then make a decision.




Yes, that's pretty fair.

I have some qualms about 18C on freedom of speech grounds but I think there is a need to prevent obviously nasty racism or hate speech, and the exemptions under 18D provides fair protection for reasonable comment, so I don't think there is any need to modify or repeal 18C.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2016)

Ves said:


> Ignoring the debate about whether it is a criminal or not  your point isn't really relevant to 18C or 18D (don't ignore that section because it's important).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Okay I concede the pointvregarding 18c. Appreciatecthe education.

I still stand hy my broader point regarding PC however; I will have to xome up with another analogy when I have some time.


----------



## Tink (18 August 2016)

Thanks, Ves, for your input, but we went through this at Christmas time here in Melbourne.
I don't agree with their social engineering and as stated -
*
Pervasive step toward Orwell's totalitarian Newspeak.*

Hate speech is a term used to silence people and stop debate.

Offend and insult are terms that should go.

The act was set up in 1975 and again in 1996.

_Who are these people that are suppose to know better than us. 
We must just remain silent while a handful of activists and leftist elites decide all this for us. After all, they know so much better than the common man. 
They are so wise and so knowledgeable._

Rubbish.

If they so despise democracy, so hate freedom of speech, and so deplore the common man, then they should move to North Korea or somewhere more fitting of their tyrannical ideology.


----------



## McLovin (18 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Ves, for your input, but we went through this at Christmas time here in Melbourne.
> I don't agree with their social engineering and as stated -
> *
> Pervasive step toward Orwell's totalitarian Newspeak.*
> ...




Lol.


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2016)

Ellen DeGeneres is racist ... no wait she was having a LARFFFFF ...


----------



## McLovin (18 August 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Ellen DeGeneres is racist ... no wait she was having a LARFFFFF ...
> 
> View attachment 67787




Does anyone care what the Outrage Brigade on Twitter think?


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> Does anyone care what the Outrage Brigade on Twitter think?




Apparently so ... it is big news amongst the Twitterazzi .. oh yeah and the BBC !!

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37107541


----------



## Tisme (18 August 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Apparently so ... it is big news amongst the Twitterazzi .. oh yeah and the BBC !!
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37107541





Harry Connick Jnr is the superior goto white man on all things Black + Racism....... just ask Daryl Somers.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> Harry Connick Jnr is the superior goto white man on all things Black + Racism....... just ask Daryl Somers.




That would be Harry the Hypocrite?

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtOt5mNEZE[/video]


----------



## sr20de (21 August 2016)

Why Political Correctness And Free Speech Can't Co-Exist

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/why-political-correctness-and-free-speech-cant-co-exist/

& 

Mad March Of Political Correctness

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ical-correctness/story-e6frgd0x-1226106958791

& 

Another move to insanity.

BBC Says Opposing Shariah Law Is 'Islamophobic'
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/19/bbc-refusing-shariah-law-islamophobia/

Again has the west lost its free speech, After doing some research it is a bad trend we are following.


----------



## luutzu (21 August 2016)

sr20de said:


> Why Political Correctness And Free Speech Can't Co-Exist
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/why-political-correctness-and-free-speech-cant-co-exist/
> 
> ...




I thought it's just customary, in any country, to never speak your mind to everyone. Hence, stick to "how's the kids", the weather, sports and maybe petrol prices and holiday spots.

That's not about your speech being restricted, that's just being polite and sociable.

So calling someone names, tell them to get screwed, tell them to abandon their religion and adopt yours, tell them to not cover up but show lots of skin... that's a screwy sense of freedom. Freedom don't just revolves around you or your beliefs - not when that sense of freedom oppress other people for no good safety/security reason.

As Chief Boggo said, life is not about having every barbarians and savages live and eat and dress and enjoy the same thing as you. So let it go.


----------



## Tink (23 August 2016)

Good to see Brendan O'Neill is in Australia.

They didn't answer the question --




_ABC is Political_

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...23929&page=123&p=901379&viewfull=1#post901379


----------



## SirRumpole (23 August 2016)

This case was brought up on Q&A last night.

It seems like overkill to me. The plaintiff wasn't even mentioned and now she's suing for "possible verbal abuse" or something similarly trivial.

Even if the defendants win they could be up for massive legal bills.

Doesn't seem right to me.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-legal-blackmail-senator-20160419-go9yf7.html


----------



## Tisme (23 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> This case was brought up on Q&A last night.
> 
> It seems like overkill to me. The plaintiff wasn't even mentioned and now she's suing for "possible verbal abuse" or something similarly trivial.
> 
> ...




Natives using Jew tactics to profit from the justice system. Great way to distance people from embracing minorities


----------



## SirRumpole (23 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> Natives using Jew tactics to profit from the justice system. Great way to distance people from embracing minorities




Yes, it will only increase resentment and lead to more racism if it succeeds. It seems totally laughable, the students were criticising the Uni itself and someone on the sidelines decides to make a big deal out of it, no doubt funded by Aboriginal Legal Aid; ie the taxpayer.


----------



## Tink (25 August 2016)

Agree, Rumpole, and a question that should be asked to all politicians.

Should people be fined $250,000 for SAYING something -- yes or no?

Is this a liberal democracy or North Korea?

The reason 18C should go.


----------



## Tisme (25 August 2016)

Tink said:


> Agree, Rumpole, and a question that should be asked to all politicians.
> 
> Should people be fined $250,000 for SAYING something -- yes or no?
> 
> ...




I fear it might be a bit too late. One only has to observe how people arc up on discussion boards over comments that are obviously designed to be ridiculous, but taken as an affront nonetheless.....and the odd thing is that even many  baby boomers seem to have lost that tolerance of larrikin behaviours, bending to the "establishment" they sought to unchain all those years ago.


----------



## McLovin (25 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> This case was brought up on Q&A last night.
> 
> It seems like overkill to me. The plaintiff wasn't even mentioned and now she's suing for "possible verbal abuse" or something similarly trivial.
> 
> ...




It's a BS argument and would've been tossed out of court, with costs awarded to the defendant/s. Even if this...



> "Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT is stopping segregation with segregation,"




...breached 18C, which I don't think it does (and the case law sets a very high bar for offence), it would be protected by 18D. The fact that she has asked to settle for $5,000 after initially claiming damages of $500,000 shows how frivolous the claim is.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> The fact that she has asked to settle for $5,000 after initially claiming damages of $500,000 shows how frivolous the claim is.




Yes you are right, but the fact that people have settled for $5,000 instead of risking a court case and being stuck with legal fees indicates that it's too easy to launch frivolous cases under this legislation.

That's not an excuse for 18C to be abolished, just that it should be modified to catch only the nastier forms of hate speech.


----------



## Tisme (25 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes you are right, but the fact that people have settled for $5,000 instead of risking a court case and being stuck with legal fees indicates that it's too easy to launch frivolous cases under this legislation.
> 
> That's not an excuse for 18C to be abolished, just that it should be modified to catch only the nastier forms of hate speech.





Maybe what's left of the student union could have defended their members?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> Maybe what's left of the student union could have defended their members?




The only thing Left of the student union are the Fabians !


----------



## bellenuit (25 August 2016)

Let's hope this letter to University of Chicago new students is replicated elsewhere in the West.


----------



## Tink (26 August 2016)

Good to hear, Bellenuit.

And hopefully they have stopped going around destroying things, like ISIS.

The history is there, so leave it alone.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's a BS argument and would've been tossed out of court, with costs awarded to the defendant/s. Even if this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...breached 18C, which I don't think it does (and the case law sets a very high bar for offence), it would be protected by 18D. The fact that she has asked to settle for $5,000 after initially claiming damages of $500,000 shows how frivolous the claim is.




Still, the threat of 18c even if frivolous, cost these people $5000, for fear of being unlucky enough to strike an activist magistrate. Even if it went to court and were thrown out, it would have cost money, time and stress.

The effect is the same, the stifling of freedom of speech, because people will be reluctant to say anything along these lines.


----------



## McLovin (26 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Still, the threat of 18c even if frivolous, cost these people $5000, for fear of being unlucky enough to strike an activist magistrate. Even if it went to court and were thrown out, it would have cost money, time and stress.
> 
> The effect is the same, the stifling of freedom of speech, because people will be reluctant to say anything along these lines.




You could say the same about defamation laws.


----------



## Knobby22 (26 August 2016)

wayneL said:


> Still, the threat of 18c even if frivolous, cost these people $5000, for fear of being unlucky enough to strike an activist magistrate. Even if it went to court and were thrown out, it would have cost money, time and stress.
> 
> The effect is the same, the stifling of freedom of speech, because people will be reluctant to say anything along these lines.




I agree. She has shown that if you are aboriginal, female, LGBT, Muslim, black, Asian, a minority, you name it, you can now threaten and extort with impunity using this law. It is wrong and as a minimum needs to be rewritten. It does provide a chilling effect to freedom of speech.

Our defamation laws are even more ridiculous.


----------



## McLovin (26 August 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree. She has shown that if you are aboriginal, female, LGBT, Muslim, black, Asian, a minority, you name it, you can now threaten and extort with impunity using this law. It is wrong and as a minimum needs to be rewritten. It does provide a chilling effect to freedom of speech.
> 
> Our defamation laws are even more ridiculous.




It would help if you understood the law before criticising it. How does a female, LGBT or Muslim "extort with impunity using this law"?


----------



## Knobby22 (26 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> It would help if you understood the law before criticising it. How does a female, LGBT or Muslim "extort with impunity using this law"?




You just saw it done. $5,000 or go to court. Of course you have to have the knowledge and savvy to do it.

The case is very unlikely to be won but the persons involved would have to attend court, be paraded in front of the media and miss time at university, hence the willingness of some of them to settle.


----------



## Ves (26 August 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's a BS argument and would've been tossed out of court, with costs awarded to the defendant/s. Even if this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...breached 18C, which I don't think it does (and the case law sets a very high bar for offence), it would be protected by 18D. The fact that she has asked to settle for $5,000 after initially claiming damages of $500,000 shows how frivolous the claim is.



Some of the defendants didn't settle (including the guy who made the facebook post).

edit:  Apparently there still will be a court case. 

Latest here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...y/news-story/a86f5c3d65d1c1df5289bcd44bc354d2


----------



## cynic (26 August 2016)

One thing I keep noticing of late, is that some articles accessed via google, can be viewed without subscription, but are otherwise inaccessible when viewed via a forum link.

By googling "Australian article 18c",  I was able to locate and read  the article, without the need for a subscription.


----------



## Ves (26 August 2016)

cynic said:


> One thing I keep noticing of late, is that some articles accessed via google, can be viewed without subscription, but are otherwise inaccessible when viewed via a forum link.
> 
> By googling "Australian article 18c",  I was able to locate and read  the article, without the need for a subscription.



Same for me, cynic.  I found the article from a google search.


----------



## Tink (27 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> I fear it might be a bit too late. One only has to observe how people arc up on discussion boards over comments that are obviously designed to be ridiculous, but taken as an affront nonetheless.....and the odd thing is that even many  baby boomers seem to have lost that tolerance of larrikin behaviours, bending to the "establishment" they sought to unchain all those years ago.




You better watch out, Tisme, as you would be the first to be fined for talking, thinking and breathing. (I am joking, are we still allowed to do that?)
Sadly people are being stopped from talking, as was pointed out by Wayne, where we can't even give an opinion.

The thing that annoys me is the constant threat that people will commit suicide, and it is wearing thin for me with this dishonesty.
If these are mental health patients, then they should deal with it, not put this across to us.

Why do they constantly bring up suicide for every cause?

Just to say, I am not of english heritage, but I do admire their rule of law.
People came to this country, and got on with it.
We all added a bit, but we never changed the fabric, imv.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Tink (15 September 2016)

Tink said:


> David Leyonhjelm: NSW Senator lodges complaint over journalist’s claim he is an ‘angry white male’
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89
> 
> ...




*Racial Discrimination Act:* HRC accepts 18C complaint lodged by David Leyonhjelm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/hrc-accepts-18c-complaint-lodged-by-leyonhjelm/7838770

----------------------------------

'The best way to eliminate racism is to let it burst'

Senator Leyonhjelm said he made the complaint to help his case for abolishing 18C, which makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race or ethnicity.

It was brought in by the Keating government in 1995.

He said his bill would be reintroduced into the Upper House this week, saying, "protecting our feelings" was not the role of the legal system.

    "Supressing speech about racism does nothing to eliminate it," he said.

"The best way to eliminate racism is to let it burst out like boil."

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has also tabled a private member's bill to remove the words "insult" and "offend" from the Racial Discrimination Act.

Every Coalition backbench senator ”” with the exception of Victorian senator Jane Hume ”” signed on, as did seven crossbenchers, including Senator Leyonhjelm.


----------



## Value Collector (5 November 2016)

sr20de said:


> Why Political Correctness And Free Speech Can't Co-Exist
> 
> .




I think they can,


----------



## noco (5 November 2016)

The case against the 3 QUT students has been dismissed and so it should have been......Triggs has nothing left in her morale standards and should resign or be sacked.

Hopefully the case against Bill Leak will reach the same fate.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...y/news-story/2cdd6137fb1058b115a92d5736142b0a


----------



## dutchie (15 November 2016)

The main reason for the Human Rights Commission to exist...............

Compensation


----------



## Tisme (15 November 2016)

Interesting how quickly people jumped on the change.org bandwagon for the Steve Price vs Jamila Rizvi nonsense.


----------



## dutchie (16 November 2016)

dutchie said:


> The main reason for the Human Rights Commission to exist...............
> 
> Compensation




Aaahh  compensation....






Human Rights Commission applicant


----------



## Tink (7 December 2016)

I am glad to see the Liberals in Victoria are standing up for our freedoms and Western Culture, against these two Communists/destroyers, the Greens/Labor, imv

We also have our Christmas songs back.

After Trump was elected, Labor put out a confirmation notice that they are allowed back in schools.

They should never have tried to remove them, as they are a part of our culture, imv.
_
Christmas
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25726&page=6_


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2016)

Tink said:


> I am glad to see the Liberals in Victoria are standing up for our freedoms and Western Culture, against these two Communists/destroyers, the Greens/Labor, imv
> 
> We also have our Christmas songs back.
> 
> ...




There are lots of denials and rewriting of recent history. In reality Tink, was there a ban or was it Principals being uber risk averse and bleeding hearts?

I was listening to the local ABC radio the other day and the commentator asked his guest, the deputy mayor of Brisbane, if it was true that the annual decoration of buses had been canned as per rumours. The guest explained that was not the case and that he was the fella who was judging the best display. Didn't stop the rumour starting then and there though.


----------



## Tink (13 December 2016)

Tisme, it is political correctness gone mad, imv.
This was a state issue.

All I can say is people are waking up to this political correctness, and trying to change our culture.
The amount of nativity scenes I have seen in Melbourne, has been wonderful to see.

Supposedly, Victoria was the only state in Australia that did not consider Christmas as a public holiday, which of course, counted a backlash again.

We also had a few bills trying to get passed that would silence us -- more culture wars, which didn't go through, thankfully, imv.


----------



## dutchie (11 March 2017)

Bill Leak at the 18C parliamentary inquiry:

*Graham Perrett:* Do you think there should be any limits to what you — or other cartoonists, for that matter — can lawfully express in cartoons?
*Bill Leak:* No, I do not. *I think you either have freedom of speech or you do not. *
(my bold)
*******************
*Bill Leak:* You have raised what I think is one of the most important points about this. I think that that hypothetical person who does not have the backing of an organisation like News Corp is going to look at what happened to me and say: ‘That bloke really got into a lot of trouble for telling the truth. I better not tell it myself.’ If that is not a dampener on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I do not know what is. To me, I think it is extremely sinister. I think it is downright sinister what the AHRC did in my case because that is precisely the message that it sent out to everyone: do not tell the truth; do not take a risk; speech is not free in this country.
*******************
*Bill Leak:* No, I do not, because it might be for a whole lot of people for whom this is not a matter of immediate interest. If you look at the Human Rights Commission and the Race Discrimination Commissioner, you might think, ‘Are they supposed to be protecting human rights?’ I was concerned with the human rights of Aboriginal children. I am concerned about the human rights of Aboriginal women. They suffer from the most appalling levels of violence. They are 34 times more likely to finish up in hospital than white people in our community, but to mention that makes me a racist! For mentioning the shocking statistics that go along with sexual and physical abuse of children within Aboriginal communities, I get labelled a racist. It is absolutely absurd. It has nothing to do with racism at all. It is trying to stamp out truth.
********************
*Bill Leak: *So, yes, I understand that people are going to say, ‘I’m offended.’ But what I would say to you is that a lot of people rather enjoy being offended. It is actually rather cool to be offended these days. It is something that took a long time to get my own head around, and suddenly I realised that people are not looking at my cartoons with the intention of being amused; *they want to be offended.*
(my bold)
*************************************

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y/news-story/138cef1db1efbc3939033a83186c837f


----------



## dutchie (10 June 2020)

The West has lost.

Western civilisation is engaged in an internal culture war. The stakes are very high. If those that advocate the values of liberal democracy continue to cede ground to postmodernist & radical left narratives then our basic freedoms will disappear.


----------



## Tink (10 June 2020)

Do not be afraid

Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.

-- Pope John Paul II


----------



## PZ99 (10 June 2020)

Freedom of speech comes from freedom of thought. 

Not by blindly jumping on someone elses political / religious bandwagon.


----------



## dutchie (10 June 2020)

dutchie said:


> The West has lost.
> 
> Western civilisation is engaged in an internal culture war. The stakes are very high. If those that advocate the values of liberal democracy continue to cede ground to postmodernist & radical left narratives then our basic freedoms will disappear.




_*“The rules!" *shouted Ralph,* "you're breaking the rules!"*_

*"Who cares?”* came the response from the children.

Lord of the Flies


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2020)

My hero


----------



## moXJO (11 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> My hero




It's like watching brainwashed morons.
I understand how Hitler, Stalin, Mao all got going. People are idiots.  I didn't think they could get anymore feverish after the #metoo era. But here we go.

We already went through the book burning phase, end of free speech, statue toppling and now movie banning.

All they need is the next Hitler to direct them all.


----------



## PZ99 (11 June 2020)

Aren't they are still being directed by the last Hitler ?

As for Peter Hitchens, I think his brother was closer to the mark


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> We already went through the book burning phase, end of free speech, statue toppling and now movie banning.



The one certainty is that further progress is now close to impossible.

If today’s attitude had prevailed in the past then every progressive cause from access to abortion to gay rights would have been shut down immediately for challenging the prevailing wisdom of the day.

Society was somewhat conservative in the 1980’s and 90’s but at least free thought and expression were valued meaning that progress was possible and actually occurring. No longer the case unfortunately.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2020)

PZ99 said:


> As for Peter Hitchens, I think his brother was closer to the mark



A great loss to rational thought indeed.

In these days however, Peter is a rare beacon of such.


----------



## qldfrog (11 June 2020)

The way i see it, with the left adopting taliban techniques means the dream of a centrist party is dead.
I am now keener than ever even to vote further right than i would feel comfortable.just to try to stop this wave of madness.
.i now understand US republicans....


----------



## dutchie (11 June 2020)

The US is imploding. That's not good for Australia.


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> The one certainty is that further progress is now close to impossible.
> 
> If today’s attitude had prevailed in the past then every progressive cause from access to abortion to gay rights would have been shut down immediately for challenging the prevailing wisdom of the day.
> 
> Society was somewhat conservative in the 1980’s and 90’s but at least free thought and expression were valued meaning that progress was possible and actually occurring. No longer the case unfortunately.



This is an attempt at changing the guard.
Commies tore down statue in China.
Isis did the same.
Destroying  history is often the first thing that happens with authoritarianism.


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

PZ99 said:


> Aren't they are still being directed by the last Hitler ?




According to lefties Bush was Hitler. Kind of left them with no where to go once trump came along.


----------



## PZ99 (12 June 2020)

Hehe - George Bush... the man who had to abandon the free market principles in order to save the free market system. 

History repeats itself in more ways then one


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

PZ99 said:


> Hehe - George Bush... the man who had to abandon the free market principles in order to save the free market system.
> 
> History repeats itself in more ways then one



Bush actually talked Obama into bailing out wall street. Funny stuff.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2020)

It will say a lot, if the protest marches go ahead on the weekend, IMO it will show radicals are running the country not the Government.
In W.A the Labor Government, run by Mark McGowan has a huge popularity and has been held in high regard by the public regarding the virus, he has asked the marches be postponed.
It will really highlight a problem if they go ahead IMO.


----------



## PZ99 (12 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> Bush actually talked Obama into bailing out wall street. Funny stuff.



Well no one wanted to suck like a Hoover   Even funnier is how Trump rolled back the regulations that caused the need for a bailout in the first place.


----------



## basilio (12 June 2020)

Just a reality check  please. Back in the real world  which organisations  are ASIO most concerned about ?

*ASIO briefing warns that the far-right is exploiting coronavirus to recruit new members*
Right-wing extremists now make up around a third of all domestic ASIO investigations, with the spy agency warning that the far-right is using COVID-19 as cover to push its dangerous ideas and recruit new members.
...
"COVID-19 restrictions are being exploited by extreme right-wing narratives that paint the state as oppressive, and globalisation and democracy as flawed and failing," the intelligence agency warned.

"We assess the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced an extreme right-wing belief in the inevitability of societal collapse and a 'race war'.
*"An extreme right-wing attack in Australia is plausible."*
Right-wing groups and individuals have sought to take advantage of conspiracy theories that are spreading in the community during the pandemic, including people opposed to 5G technology and mandatory vaccination.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...-far-right-is-exploiting-coronavirus/12344472


----------



## Dona Ferentes (12 June 2020)

More scared of the book-burners, _bas_


----------



## Dona Ferentes (12 June 2020)

too bad about the protester the statue fell on (now in critical condition in hospital)


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Just a reality check  please. Back in the real world  which organisations  are ASIO most concerned about ?
> 
> *ASIO briefing warns that the far-right is exploiting coronavirus to recruit new members*
> Right-wing extremists now make up around a third of all domestic ASIO investigations, with the spy agency warning that the far-right is using COVID-19 as cover to push its dangerous ideas and recruit new members.
> ...




That's the problem Bas, for every action there is a reaction, the left are running riot the obvious reaction will be a stronger right wing will form.
For one group saying it is our way or the highway, another group of people who strongly disagree will form and say get stuffed.
History repeats.


----------



## Tink (12 June 2020)

Gone with the Wind has been taken off HBO Max following calls for it to be removed from the US streaming service.

HBO Max said the 1939 film was "a product of its time" and depicted "ethnic and racial prejudices" that "were wrong then and are wrong today".

It said the film would return to the platform at an unspecified date with a "discussion of its historical context".

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52990714


----------



## SirRumpole (12 June 2020)

Tink said:


> Gone with the Wind has been taken off HBO Max following calls for it to be removed from the US streaming service.
> 
> HBO Max said the 1939 film was "a product of its time" and depicted "ethnic and racial prejudices" that "were wrong then and are wrong today".
> 
> ...




The Nanny State lives !

How ridiculous , telling adults what to think about a work of fiction set in the past.

As bad as the Fawlty Towers fiasco.


----------



## dutchie (12 June 2020)

When they come and tell you your racist, tell them to get st#ffed.


----------



## basilio (12 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> For one group saying it is our way or the highway, another group of people who strongly disagree will form and say get stuffed.




ASIO notes that it is extreme right wing groups that are the most significant cause for concern. 
Maybe worth considering the views of  US General John Allan (Ret) with regard to the risks the US is facing and the role of political leadership in addressing these concerns.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/03/trump-military-george-floyd-protests/


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> too bad about the protester the statue fell on (now in critical condition in hospital)


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2020)

basilio said:


> ASIO notes that it is extreme right wing groups that are the most significant cause for concern.
> Maybe worth considering the views of  US General John Allan (Ret) with regard to the risks the US is facing and the role of political leadership in addressing these concerns.
> 
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/03/trump-military-george-floyd-protests/



There are radicals on both sides IMO
My guess would be ASIO are concerned about all extremists, it just depends how the media wants to present it, News would probably print the same article with left wing radicals being the subject.
The media are clowns, as has been highlighted by there coverage of the early part of the pandemic.
Just my opinion.


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

A couple blocks in Seattle have been overtaken.
They created a "autonomous zone free of police". Got some armed security now as well with the John Brown Gun Club.  I think Chaz the rapper is the current warlord.

You couldn't make this sht up


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2020)

basilio said:


> ASIO notes that it is extreme right wing groups that are the most significant cause for concern.




I'll compare that to saying that Right wing motorists driving at 200 km/h through the suburbs are an extreme concern most certainly but the Left having gotten rid of speed cameras, radars, speed humps and so on whilst handing out free petrol sure isn't helping the cause.

If I was black then what's going on right now would terrify me really, indeed even as someone who's very obviously white it's a major concern.

Destroying private property, riots in the street, putting the entire community at risk of another COVID-19 outbreak, blocking access to movies and TV shows and so on. If the aim is to fuel resentment against the cause then this is a damn good way to do it.

It's not the path to peace. You don't get people on side with whatever cause by smashing things up and causing chaos. Rather, you do it by showing them how they will benefit or at least not be harmed by agreeing to what you want, a point that those advocating everything from saving the wilderness to gay marriage understood very clearly. 

The aim is to convince those not directly involved that they've nothing to fear from change, that it won't put them out of work or prevent them continuing to live in a conservative manner if that's what they prefer. Convince them that even if they don't see the cause as important to pursue, they've nothing to lose by it happening so there's no reason to oppose it.


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2020)

I'm worried what happens if it goes on for too long. It's very "lord of the flies" at the moment.


----------



## wayneL (12 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> I'm worried what happens if it goes on for too long. It's very "lord of the flies" at the moment.



I've been rummaging through my drawers looking for my old tin foil hat.

I don't even want to contemplate the dots that I see lining up just begging to be joined.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> I'm worried what happens if it goes on for too long. It's very "lord of the flies" at the moment.



Saying that all the problems stem from colour prejudice, therefore implying that their behaviour doesn't contribute to the problem, is fraught with danger IMO.
Talk about positive re inforcement of poor behaviour, it is a weird World we moving toward, very 'mad Max' stuff.lol
I would say Australia is fortunate, with its gun control laws, during this period.


----------



## qldfrog (12 June 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> too bad about the protester the statue fell on (now in critical condition in hospital)




Was that irony or karma?
Darwin challenge:does not deserve human title


----------



## basilio (12 June 2020)

*One perspective on the ducking of Edward Colston
*

* Fighting over statues obscures the real problem: Britain's delusion about its past *
Martin Kettle
A collective failure to look the history of empire in the eye stops us from being the kind of country we could be

There were two historically striking things about Bristol’s statue of Edward Colston. The first, most obviously, was that the statue of a slave trader could still have had pride of place in a British city in 2020. The second, much less remarked, is that the statue was only erected there in 1895, fully 200 years after Colston’s life and almost 90 years after the abolition of the slave trade.

Why did the statue go up when it did? It wasn’t to celebrate slavery. It was because, at a time when Britain’s empire stretched around the globe, what seemed to matter most about Colston to the city’s rulers was not how he had got his riches but his enduring and formidable legacy of philanthropy. Like most late Victorian British cities, Bristol was governed by Gladstonian Liberals not by Tories. The Liberals abhorred slavery and extolled their abolitionist forebears. But they celebrated their own enlightenment, in the form of the charitable schools, hospitals and research centres that they endowed, even more.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...real-problem-britains-delusion-about-its-past


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Saying that all the problems stem from colour prejudice, therefore implying that their behaviour doesn't contribute to the problem, is fraught with danger IMO.




We're living in a world where very few people be they white, black, green, blue, red, orange or any other colour, are willing to consider that they may well be the cause of a particular problem.

The few who are able to think that way tend to do well in whatever they pursue from sports to finance. Only by acknowledging our own flaws do we have any chance of improving.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> We're living in a world where very few people be they white, black, green, blue, red, orange or any other colour, are willing to consider that they may well be the cause of a particular problem.
> 
> The few who are able to think that way tend to do well in whatever they pursue from sports to finance. Only by acknowledging our own flaws do we have any chance of improving.



Yes it boils down to a do as you want, it is all our fault ticket, it should be interesting seeing how it plays out IMO.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Yes it boils down to a do as you want, it is all our fault ticket, it should be interesting seeing how it plays out IMO.




"Every child wins a prize" and there's no such thing as failure. Etc.

In the real world, a common theme among people who've had major success in any field is that they failed along the way. Plenty of inventors and scientists came up with things that didn't work, plenty of now famous musicians were booed of stage early in their careers, plenty of business people went broke on their first attempt. Etc. Failure is often a key to later success.


----------



## qldfrog (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> *One perspective on the ducking of Edward Colston
> *
> 
> * Fighting over statues obscures the real problem: Britain's delusion about its past *
> ...



Wow..a sensible article from the guardian? Is the left intelligencia now scared by the devil they have unleashed on the west after decades of consistence push?
All fanatical movements from communists to Nazis end up knifing their funders as not radical enough
It will not take long for this battle to be seen in vocal outposts like the guardian.
@basilio could maybe keep us all aware of the various changes at the editorial board etc will quickly reflect the winning side.for the sake of the world, let's hope the red Talibans loose.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Wow..a sensible article from the guardian? Is the left intelligencia now scared by the devil they have unleashed on the west after decades of consistence push?
> All fanatical movements from communists to Nazis end up knifing their funders as not radical enough
> It will not take long for this battle to be seen in vocal outposts like the guardian.
> @basilio could maybe keep us all aware of the various changes at the editorial board etc will quickly reflect the winning side.for the sake of the world, let's hope the red Talibans loose.




I'm delighted you can now recognise a balanced , nuanced position even when it is espoused by a writer through The Guardian.

By the way *you did read the whole story* and not just the first two paragraphs I pasted ? 
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...real-problem-britains-delusion-about-its-past


----------



## qldfrog (13 June 2020)

Of 


basilio said:


> I'm delighted you can now recognise a balanced , nuanced position even when it is espoused by a writer through The Guardian.
> 
> By the way *you did read the whole story* and not just the first two paragraphs I pasted ?
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...real-problem-britains-delusion-about-its-past



Course not,so there is a trick..:-(
I only read the guardian when in stuck in China
the CCP is very happy to let it spread its stories, to give you a hint even the Australian ABC ended up blocked.
I believe this says it all as to the way CCP consider the helpfulness of the guardian toward the western world.
Just think about it.
More seriously i really hope there are still a bit of balanced articles there but every click on their site is a support so i gave up with them
I do an exception for you and will rise my blood pressure by following the link..once only


----------



## qldfrog (13 June 2020)

The whole storyread
Usual bias..at least some knowledge and IQ, disagree with conclusions but hey that is not surprising.
Type of opposing side i would nearly find decent even if twisted and wrong.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2020)

Qldfrog there is no "trick" in seeing the big picture and a nuanced argument. Some arguments around statues of famous people who were also responsible for some pretty  awful events is having an additional plaque made up to add further information about what they were responsible for.

As the article said they could well be  placed in a museum which remembers the whole picture of their achievements.

In the real world Saddams statutes were the first thing to go when the US invaded.  Same of course in Romania when Clouseau was deposed.  In Soviet Russia Stalin was still revered after his death even when Khrushchev revealed the tyranny of his labour/death camps and the arbitrary imprisonment and execution of millions of people. 

A point about statutes of Confederate Generals  and other memorials in the US.

*These did not up just after the Civil War.* They were constructed largely from 1900-1920's when there was a revival of the Ku Klux Klan and a nationwide strengthening of White Supremacy. The salute to the Confederacy was a way of highlighting the people who stood up for White Supremacy.

This is very much like DW Griffiths  epic film "Birth of  a Nation" which reflected and inspired this White Supremacist  movement. It became the recruiting tool for the Ku Klux Klan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Qldfrog there is no "trick" in seeing the big picture and a nuanced argument. Some arguments around statues of famous people who were also responsible for some pretty  awful events is having an additional plaque made up to add further information about what they were responsible for.
> 
> As the article said they could well be  placed in a museum which remembers the whole picture of their achievements.
> 
> ...




Where does it stop. Book burning not enough?
Let's start wiping history into a beige blob of leftist retardary.
Mount Rushmore, pyramids what else should we tear down?
While I could care less about a statue, it's a slippery slope once it kicks off.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> Where does it stop. Book burning not enough?
> Let's start wiping history into a beige blob of leftist retardary.
> Mount Rushmore, pyramids what else should we tear down?
> While I could care less about a statue, it's a slippery slope once it kicks off.




I agree, although as far as King Leopold is concerned, what did he ever do for us ? For all we know he had never heard of Australia. The same goes for a lot of places named after English Lords who have never been here.

We need more local names, not just of indigenous people, but others who contributed to the development of this country in a practical way.


----------



## qldfrog (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Qldfrog there is no "trick" in seeing the big picture and a nuanced argument. Some arguments around statues of famous people who were also responsible for some pretty  awful events is having an additional plaque made up to add further information about what they were responsible for.
> 
> As the article said they could well be  placed in a museum which remembers the whole picture of their achievements.
> 
> ...



Are you not a teacher? I can not believe it so the US civil war was a matter of slavery of course and slave owners vs freedom and race equality?
As a Japanese will tell you WWII was to blame on the US? And chinese kid tell you the greatness of the gread jump forward?
Honestly, I am not kidding or joking : I feel like crying reading that type of sxxit from someone teaching some kids, so sad.
Take 1 week of your time reading causes of US civil war, confederates vs union, etc...I am sure even leftist authors could have handle the subject properly
You will not take this well, but you would have been a perfect red book holder or hitlerian youth in different times and places .A brain is used to think and critical analysis, otherwise why are you on earth for?
Anyway back to our usual jest but please educate yourself and value facts not ideology


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree, although as far as King Leopold is concerned, what did he ever do for us ? For all we know he had never heard of Australia. The same goes for a lot of places named after English Lords who have never been here.
> 
> We need more local names, not just of indigenous people, but others who contributed to the development of this country in a practical way.



Yep change it through consultation.
Don't just mob tear it down.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2020)

QFrog I researched and taught American History. Likewise with Soviet and Chinese history. Do I understand it all ? No way.. But I can recognise a range of factors in the history of any country. And it is  complicated.

It is always rewarding to discover the elements of history that are overlooked or ignored or even deliberately misrepresented to suit a particular ideology.

I referenced DW Griffths  "Birth of Nation" in my previous post. That was one of the most influential movies ever produced. But what was it about ? How did it depict US history ? What was its message ? How did it get used ?

_Despite its controversial story, the film has been praised by film critics, with Ebert mentioning its use as a historical tool: "The Birth of a Nation is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."[112]

According to a 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times, the film facilitated the refounding of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915.[113] History.com similarly states that "There is no doubt that Birth of a Nation played no small part in winning wide public acceptance" for the KKK, and that throughout the film "African Americans are portrayed as brutish, lazy, morally degenerate, and dangerous."[114] David Duke used the film to recruit Klansmen in the 1970s.[115]

In 2013, the American critic Richard Brody wrote The Birth of a Nation was : 


...a seminal commercial spectacle but also a decisively original work of art—in effect, the founding work of cinematic realism, albeit *a work that was developed to pass lies off as reality*. It's tempting to think of the film's influence as evidence of the inherent corruption of realism as a cinematic mode—but it's even more revealing to acknowledge the disjunction between its beauty, on the one hand, and, on the other, its injustice and falsehood. *The movie's fabricated events shouldn't lead any viewer to deny the historical facts of slavery and Reconstruction*. But they also shouldn't lead to a denial of the peculiar, disturbingly exalted beauty of Birth of a Nation, even in its depiction of immoral actions and its realization of blatant propaganda. The worst thing about The Birth of a Nation is how good it is. The merits of its grand and enduring aesthetic make it impossible to ignore and, despite its disgusting content, also make it hard not to love. And it's that very conflict that renders the film all the more despicable, the experience of the film more of a torment—together with the acknowledgment that Griffith, whose short films for Biograph were already among the treasures of world cinema, yoked his mighty talent to the cause of hatred (which, still worse, he sincerely depicted as virtuous).[109]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation_


----------



## basilio (13 June 2020)

*The Right to Challenge authority in the US. 
*


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> *The Right to Challenge authority in the US.
> *




They:
 Put up walls.
Deport who they don't like.
Restrict immigration.
Walk around with high powered weapons.
Beat up the media they don't like.

Yeah... umm


----------



## basilio (13 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> They:
> Put up walls.
> Deport who they don't like.
> Restrict immigration.
> ...




Excellent as usual.  
A perfect description of the current administration and its White Supremacists followers


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Excellent as usual.
> A perfect description of the current administration and its White Supremacists followers



See... I told you we are basically about the same thing. Time to fence these normie centrists out.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2020)

John Cleese says it all about political correctness.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...ams-bbc-uktv-germans-episode-removal/12352098

The thing that gets me is that this episode was broadcast in 1975 and it's only now that people complained about it ? Why haven't the West Indian (and Indian)  cricket teams been outraged for 45 years and refused to tour England ?

The outrage stirred up seems confected and for the purposes that allow a few radicals to remain in the public eye and get credibility for little reason.


----------



## wayneL (13 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Excellent as usual.
> A perfect description of the current administration and its White Supremacists followers



Point of order, bas.

White supremacy is more the purview of the Democratic party, from whence the KKK derived most of their membership... and just to be clear, I didn't say the Democratic Party started the KKK.


----------



## moXJO (13 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> John Cleese says it all about political correctness.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...ams-bbc-uktv-germans-episode-removal/12352098
> 
> ...



And the PC police will say he is an angry white boomer to nullify any commonsense.


----------



## dutchie (14 June 2020)

Winston Churchill was such a good Prime Minister that the British voted him in on two separate occasions.






He was PM for about 8 1/2 years. He defeated the racists trying to take over Europe (and the world).


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (14 June 2020)

dutchie said:


> Winston Churchill was such a good Prime Minister that the British voted him in on two separate occasions.
> View attachment 104756
> 
> 
> He was PM for about 8 1/2 years. He defeated the racists trying to take over Europe (and the world).



They don't like Churchill because he was an imperialist: ironically if it wasn't for Churchill; Britain would have surrendered to Germany, Hitler and Stalin would have maintained their alliance, and the Americans may never had developed the atomic bomb before the Germans. Churchill truely is the man who saved Western Civilisation.


----------



## dutchie (14 June 2020)

If you are ever accused, especially businesses, of not being woke enough then don't submit to their BS.
If you do, they will only expand their demands for further wokeness. It will never be enough.


----------



## qldfrog (14 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Churchill truely is the man who saved Western Civilisation.



isn't this the whole reason of the hate? he saved the West. We all know that this crowd only want to flee this inequality hell to move to the African and middle east paradises.I am ok with that.I would happily use my taxes for this


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (14 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> isn't this the whole reason of the hate? he saved the West. We all know that this crowd only want to flee this inequality hell to move to the African and middle east paradises.I am ok with that.I would happily use my taxes for this




These people are myopic. If it wasn't for Churchill, Hitler's chances of success would have been greatly increased. Dare-I-say that the Germans would have developed the atomic bomb before the Americans, based on the fact that Germany wouldn't have fought the Soviets and Britain would have surrendered allowing more of their German talent to focus on nuclear advancement rather than fight on their front lines.

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews, homosexuals and blacks; Churchill stood up to Hitler, and these idiots today desecrate his statue.


----------



## qldfrog (14 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> These people are myopic. If it wasn't for Churchill, Hitler's chances of success would have been greatly increased. Dare-I-say that the Germans would have developed the atomic bomb before the Americans, based on the fact that Germany wouldn't have fought the Soviets and Britain would have surrendered allowing more of their German talent to focus on nuclear advancement rather than fight on their front lines.
> 
> Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews, homosexuals and blacks; Churchill stood up to Hitler, and these idiots today desecrate his statue.



Agree, but you try to analyse, put some thoughts here
He was male white representative of an empire, that is enough to be evil


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (14 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Agree, but you try to analyse, put some thoughts here
> He was male white representative of an empire, that is enough to be evil




That's true. There is no real intellectual depth that supports and/or justifies their behaviour.

I think the vast majority of these anarchists are just looking for an excuse to engage in rioting, looting, vandalism and/or violence. Violent protest and the destruction of private and public property isn't going to get people to listen to their grievances.


----------



## dutchie (17 June 2020)

First they came for your statues (and State names names lol) and everyone cheered, then they came for anyone not woke enough and everyone cheered, then they came for you and there was no one to cheer.


----------



## basilio (17 June 2020)

You have to wonder....
A group of right wing protesters decided to "protect" a statue of George Elliot AKA Mary Anne Evans. She was a great Victorian novelist and, incidentally, a public supporter of the anti-slavery movement. 

So did these people have any idea of who she was and her history when they decided she needed their protection ? 




*Defenders of a George Eliot statue had no idea what they were doing and I’m here for it.*
https://lithub.com/defenders-of-a-g...idea-what-they-were-doing-and-im-here-for-it/


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2020)

basilio said:


> So did these people have any idea of who she was and her history when they decided she needed their protection ?




If someone supports freedom of expression then by its very nature they have no need to know what message someone wishes to express, only that they wish to express it.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone supports freedom of expression then by its very nature they have no need to know what message someone wishes to express, only that they wish to express it.




Up to a point.

Should we support "hate" speech against a certain group of otherwise peaceful people on the grounds that it represents freedom of speech ? 

It's a fine line I would say, but in the interests of public safety and an orderly society there has to be some limit, and it's the job of an elected government to decide what those limits are.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 June 2020)

I must admit that Churchill was not the nicest of people but he had a good war.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a fine line I would say, but in the interests of public safety and an orderly society there has to be some limit, and it's the job of an elected government to decide what those limits are.




Indeed. We have democratically elected governments to make such rules and if it's legal well then you're entitled to do it.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 June 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit that Churchill was not the nicest of people but he had a good war.
> 
> gg




Don't mention the war !!!


----------



## wayneL (17 June 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit that Churchill was not the nicest of people but he had a good war.
> 
> gg



Everyone, especially the great people such as Churchill, are a  mosaic of oxymorons and contradictions.

Churchill's role in the war has me forgiving all of the contradictions... And though he was castigated for it and suffered electorally, he was damn well right about the Soviets and the iron curtain.

I have no doubt that he would have been a difficult man to like, if one knew him personally, but on the national level his oratories rank among the greatest of all time.

As far as other figures are concerned, they were men and women are their time and their contribution to society is the reason they are remembered via their statue.

Judging these people by the current aberration of woke values is just plain wrong.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't mention the war !!!




The British Empire had supported the Greeks in their enduring fight for liberation from the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> their contribution to society Easter reason they are remembered fire statue.




Easter?

Fire statue?

I don't mind you saying it of course, just not following what you're on about.


----------



## wayneL (17 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Easter?
> 
> Fire statue?
> 
> I don't mind you saying it of course, just not following what you're on about.



Sorry LMAO, damned autocorrect.

Fixed now


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Up to a point.
> 
> Should we support "hate" speech against a certain group of otherwise peaceful people on the grounds that it represents freedom of speech ?
> 
> It's a fine line I would say, but in the interests of public safety and an orderly society there has to be some limit, and it's the job of an elected government to decide what those limits are.



When the mob decides what is right and wrong, it isn't long before those who supported the mob are affected, then they scream for the authorities to control the mob.
That is the problem with protesters and knee jerk reactions, they are ill thought out, usually ill conceived and soon become unruly and out of control.
That is why, the rule of law started in the first place.
Lynch mobs, who are judge, jury and executioner don't usually stop to think things through.
Unfortunately IMO, we are fast returning to that modus operandi, with the media and a gullible public.


----------



## macca (17 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> When the mob decides what is right and wrong, it isn't long before those who supported the mob are affected, then they scream for the authorities to control the mob.
> That is the problem with protesters and knee jerk reactions, they are ill thought out, usually ill conceived and soon become unruly and out of control.
> That is why, the rule of law started in the first place.
> Lynch mobs, who are judge, jury and executioner don't usually stop to think things through.
> Unfortunately IMO, we are fast returning to that modus operandi, with the media and a gullible public.




The more mobs there are the greater the need to protect ones own place, with the number of guns in the USA I think there may well be a drop in population ahead.

Here in Oz we will all need a big dog and a bigger stick

Just thinking in general terms, the next generation are very soft mentally compared with the older generations, locally two young bucks had a go at a 70 year old who promptly flattened both of them

Age and treachery will often conquer youth and enthusiasm


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

macca said:


> The more mobs there are the greater the need to protect ones own place, with the number of guns in the USA I think there may well be a drop in population ahead.
> 
> Here in Oz we will all need a big dog and a bigger stick
> 
> ...




It seems that there is an element of our political class and society that want to incite violence and hatred through the exploitation of minority grievances.

It is disgraceful and pathetic.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> It seems that there is an element of our political class and society that want to incite violence and hatred through the exploitation of minority grievances.
> 
> It is disgraceful and pathetic.



It is a result of affluence and prosperity, boils back to boredom and lack of goals.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It is a result of affluence and prosperity, boils back to boredom and lack of goals.




Isn't it the individual that is responsible for their own goals in life?

We all, as individuals, have the freedom to chart our own course in life, within Australia; irrespective of religion, color, race, wealth, or sexual preference!

Nobody in Australia can say that there isn't the supportive networks and institutions available to aspire to what you want to become; within reason.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> Isn't it the individual that is responsible for their own goals in life?
> 
> We all, as individuals, have the freedom to chart our own course in life, within Australia; irrespective of religion, color, race, wealth, or sexual preference!
> 
> Nobody in Australia can say that there isn't the supportive networks and institutions available to aspire to what you want to become; within reason.



I agree, I think we have reached a point now where people are so well off, they don't want to strive.
It really shows, when a caring government puts homeless people up in a 5 star hotel and they walk out because there are rules.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I agree, I think we have reached a point now where people are so well off, they don't want to strive.
> It really shows, when a caring government puts homeless people up in a 5 star hotel and they walk out because there are rules.




It is a complex issue to address. People seek different attainment and purpose in life; some seek fortune, some seek glory, some seek power, and some seek knowledge. Some will seek a combination or strive for a balance.

Once a person has a roof over their head, food on the table and clothes on their back; they can aspire to what they wish to become, within reason.

The people that I think we are discussing are those that just want to do nothing and complain that they have nothing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2020)

Chronos-Plutus said:


> It seems that there is an element of our political class and society that want to incite violence and hatred through the exploitation of minority grievances.




I'll simply say that as a concept I absolutely support the elimination of racism and for the record I'm likewise opposed to discrimination based on gender and so on too.

No chance however that I'll be supporting violence, denial of history, decreeing that someone cannot watch a work of fiction or put their own real name on the product they invented and renaming the Australian states because an unelected mob says so. That's mocking the cause not supporting it.

There are ways to get things done and fix problems but this isn't it.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll simply say that as a concept I absolutely support the elimination of racism and for the record I'm likewise opposed to discrimination based on gender and so on too.
> 
> No chance however that I'll be supporting violence, denial of history, decreeing that someone cannot watch a work of fiction or put their own real name on the product they invented and renaming the Australian states because an unelected mob says so. That's mocking the cause not supporting it.
> 
> There are ways to get things done and fix problems but this isn't it.




100% agree with you on this. Civil discourse and open debate, in a transparent and free forum/channel of communication, is the way forward; not destroying public and private property, and disrupting people going about their daily business.


----------



## Chronos-Plutus (17 June 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll simply say that as a concept I absolutely support the elimination of racism and for the record I'm likewise opposed to discrimination based on gender and so on too.
> 
> No chance however that I'll be supporting violence, denial of history, decreeing that someone cannot watch a work of fiction or put their own real name on the product they invented and renaming the Australian states because an unelected mob says so. That's mocking the cause not supporting it.
> 
> There are ways to get things done and fix problems but this isn't it.




As an addition to my last post:

I think a great deal of the problem in Australia is with our federally elected representatives who are just lazy. These federal representatives should be holding town hall and community centre meetings every month to listen, discuss and debate the issues that reside within their electorate.

Unfortunately; many federally elected representatives are just very lazy, hoping to just score cheap political points for power on the back of their party. This is part of the reason that we are having these riots and protests.


----------



## dutchie (18 June 2020)

There is no greater threat to ASF and its members than attacks on our freedom of speech.


----------



## dutchie (19 June 2020)

They will get the children to censor themselves first.

Some children will not be able to handle denunciation.


----------



## dutchie (22 June 2020)

Civil war coming to US and UK.
Will eventually spill to Aus.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2020)

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...l/news-story/4fcea3b66535bed6d6e08a320cd246ae

Always wondered what happened to this group. They protest about China and had 300+ CCP bootlickers turn up and assault them in a qld uni


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2020)

moXJO said:


> https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...l/news-story/4fcea3b66535bed6d6e08a320cd246ae
> 
> Always wondered what happened to this group. They protest about China and had 300+ CCP bootlickers turn up and assault them in a qld uni



UQ with your taxes, the fees i o5ay them for my son's courses is a CCP agent....
Always wondered if Rederob is working there.this would explain so much


----------



## basilio (24 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> UQ with your taxes, the fees i o5ay them for my son's courses is a CCP agent....
> Always wondered if Rederob is working there.this would explain so much




Unnecessary, unwarranted, untrue.


----------



## dutchie (28 June 2020)

dutchie said:


> Civil war coming to US and UK.
> Will eventually spill to Aus.



The longer the silent majority give in to these Marxists, say and do nothing, the more it will necessitate a more physical response to overcome them.
Time is running out.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 June 2020)

dutchie said:


> The longer the silent majority give in to these Marxists, say and do nothing, the more it will necessitate a more physical response to overcome them.
> Time is running out.



If change is stopped then pressure builds up and something has to give. 

This is what is occurring now in the USA.
Massive change, but it hurts. Not the ideal way to do it. 

Martin Luther King riots revisited. People experiencing being screwed over will fight back. It's human nature. 

Bringing in the army and shooting a few people ain't going stop it. That is proven in history. 

What is needed is compromise and Democracy. Fortunately the elections are close.


----------



## wayneL (28 June 2020)

Yep democracy.

So all can voice there views without censorship.

But that's not what we have. Only the extreme  left  can voice their views with impunity. Everyone from the moderate left to the right are censored on social media.

That's not really democracy.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 June 2020)

So what actions would you propose?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> But that's not what we have. Only the extreme left can voice their views with impunity. Everyone from the moderate left to the right are censored on social media.




I doubt if that's the case on the Murdoch media, there is a choice of what bias suits you.


----------



## qldfrog (29 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt if that's the case on the Murdoch media, there is a choice of what bias suits you.



I recommend for your own instruction that you openhttps://www.news.com.au/
Which based on your belief is the mouthpiece of far right isnt it?
Crap we all agree...but if in a week you tell me that this is right propaganda, you need a serious check with a specialist.
It is as anti Trump quite anti scomo at time .aka when less popular..
This is just a pure mercantile site which will go wherever the majority/market goes.
I think maybe the Australian gives a more balanced view aka some right wing opinion otherwise most media outlets here are just "woke 2.0"
But seriously, just ipen that link in the coming days and have an objective look at political side of the few relevant articles...
And you will see a few bikini/bums pictures as well which can not hurt our old aging...bodies


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> I recommend for your own instruction that you openhttps://www.news.com.au/
> Which based on your belief is the mouthpiece of far right isnt it?
> Crap we all agree...but if in a week you tell me that this is right propaganda, you need a serious check with a specialist.
> It is as anti Trump quite anti scomo at time .aka when less popular..
> ...




If a "Right" publication us also anti Trump as you say, don't you think that there may be some truth in what they say ? If the Left and Right agree on something then it's more likely to be true. You may just have to admit that your view of Trump is at odds with reality.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> I recommend for your own instruction that you openhttps://www.news.com.au/
> Which based on your belief is the mouthpiece of far right isnt it?
> Crap we all agree...but if in a week you tell me that this is right propaganda, you need a serious check with a specialist.
> It is as anti Trump quite anti scomo at time .aka when less popular..
> ...



Exactly, like I said somewhere else the murdochs are a tabloid organisation afflicted with Sandcastle syndrome.

Could not agree more!


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2020)

You can say what ever you like as long as its not hate speech etc, problem is you snowflakes get all up set if some one rightly criticises which is ......freedom of speech.

Mean while the right wing keep stripping back our real freedoms working conditions / rights to organise and you mob cheer them on it was from there Democracy formed it was not given, the irony


----------



## basilio (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> Yep democracy.
> 
> So all can voice there views without censorship.
> 
> ...




Big call Wayne.  Just so we know were we are standing here could you please identify
1) Which extreme left organisations can voice their view with impunity on social media (or elsewhere) ?
2) Which moderate left to right organisations are censored or currently unfairly banned by Twitter or Face book or You Tube.?

Don't be too quick to respond .
Happy to let you do some research for a day or so.

Thanks


----------



## dutchie (29 June 2020)

There you go basilio. You obviously don't read much.

"CAMBRIDGE University has backed and promoted an academic who posted “White Lives Don’t Matter” after she was sent death threats.

Professor Priyamvada Gopal, a fellow of Churchill College, faced a 4,000-signature petition calling for her to be sacked over the tweet."

Not only can the left be racist but they actually get promoted.

"In 2018 Dr Noah Carl was sacked from his job at Cambridge after allegations emerged that he had allegedly published “racist” research and had collaborated with far-right extremists."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11957331/cambridge-uni-backs-academic-tweeted-white-lives-dont-matter/


----------



## dutchie (29 June 2020)

The University (Cambridge) defends the right of its academics to express their own lawful opinions which others might find controversial and deplores in the strongest terms abuse and personal attacks. These attacks are totally unacceptable and must cease.

Cambridge University has rescinded its offer of a visiting fellowship to Jordan Peterson, the self-styled “professor against political correctness”, after a backlash from faculty and students.

Cambridge University. Hypocrites.
"Express their own opinions as long as they are the same as ours...."


----------



## dutchie (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Big call Wayne.  Just so we know were we are standing here could you please identify
> 1) Which extreme left organisations can voice their view with impunity on social media (or elsewhere) ?
> 2) Which moderate left to right organisations are censored or currently unfairly banned by Twitter or Face book or You Tube.?
> 
> ...




Ho Hum. Boring and blinded.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Big call Wayne.  Just so we know were we are standing here could you please identify
> 1) Which extreme left organisations can voice their view with impunity on social media (or elsewhere) ?
> 2) Which moderate left to right organisations are censored or currently unfairly banned by Twitter or Face book or You Tube.?
> 
> ...



LMFAO, that's easy Bas

1/ Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends....

2/ Zero Hedge, Katie Hopkins, Karl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, Tommy, Milo, PewDeePie, McGuiness, Rose McGowan, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, James Woods, Laura Loomer, Lyndsay Shepard, and even Graeme Lineham FFS.

And that's straight off the top of my head without even thinking about it.

LMFAO!!!


----------



## dutchie (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> LMFAO, that's easy Bas
> 
> 1/ Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends....
> 
> ...




Come on Wayne you know its 99.99% of Guardian writers (all employed by slave traders)


----------



## basilio (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> LMFAO, that's easy Bas
> 
> 1/ Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends....
> 
> ...



Fine Wayne.  No need to think it about at all is there ?

You just moved the entire voices  left of Tommy Robinson into the Extreme Left group and gave a free pass to some of the most egregious  conspiracy runners and serial  hatemongers on the planet.

All the very best with getting way from it all Wayne.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> Fine Wayne.  No need to think it about at all is there ?
> 
> You just moved the entire voices  left of Tommy Robinson into the Extreme Left group and gave a free pass to some of the most egregious  conspiracy runners and serial  hatemongers on the planet.
> 
> All the very best with getting way from it all Wayne.



You fool. You walked right into that one my friend.

Leaving aside the narrative of what Tommy Robinson is or isn't, because that is actually irrelevant here, your above comments exposes an astonishing and all too common toxic double standard from you people, and supports my point.

And that is exactly why I include him in this list.

over Twitter and Facebook the far left get away with all sorts of hateful conduct against people who support capitalism, conservativism, and especially white people. You will even turn around and eat you're own kind alive if they do not precisely follow the dogma, with the most hateful speech imaginable, often using the most disgusting racist terms on the planet, if these transgressors are poc... Dammit, and especially if they are white.

Need I go further than to mention the most recent example of JK Rowling a previous darling of the woke brigade, who has received the most hateful abuse I think I've ever seen.

All thought really sticking up for science, biology.

Ergo, your argument here is hilariously fallacious. As mentioned above it proves my point, but also highlights your ludicrous bias.

Well done, you have been hoist by your own petard and I am still LMFAO


----------



## qldfrog (29 June 2020)

A


SirRumpole said:


> If a "Right" publication us also anti Trump as you say, don't you think that there may be some truth in what they say ? If the Left and Right agree on something then it's more likely to be true. You may just have to admit that your view of Trump is at odds with reality.



And what is my view of Trump?


----------



## basilio (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> Well done, you have been hoist by your own petard




There's a candidate for post of the year.  Just for interest I'll continue to take the bait.
Lets  take Wayne totally seriously as I assume he wants.  What are other peoples views  on his two  statements.

1) The "extreme Left" looks like _Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and 90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends

2) _Moderate left and right organisations (no extremists or exterminators  of course..) unfairly censored look like _Zero Hedge, Katie Hopkins, Karl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, Tommy, Milo, PewDeePie, McGuiness, Rose McGowan, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, James Woods, Laura Loomer, Lyndsay Shepard, and even Graeme Lineham FFS_


----------



## qldfrog (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> A
> 
> And what is my view of Trump?



Give you a clue: better than anything else on offer there and the first to break the status quo and endless growth of china and destruction of the west, the first one to actually disengage from  decades and decades of foreign countries bombings.
And someone outside the "deep-seated"/ complaisant powers in charge screwing citizens all over the world.
If you can find me a well spoken, independent minded other American with a chance to win presidency and support individual responsability, not communism, i will support him in a sec.
But all others are just sold to interests which are far from either the US or even the west.
Sanders in non communist version, i i would appreciate too


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

@basilio  Oh this is going to be good. I am going to run a book on who lines up with you, Komrade.

Odds are really short though, mate. It's London to a brick I'm afraid.

ASF to be Twitterised.


----------



## basilio (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> Oh this is going to be good. I am going to run a book on who lines up with you, Komrade.
> 
> Odds are really short though, mate. It's London to a brick I'm afraid.




You totally right Wayne. On this forum to this time  I would agree that you will win hands down.

I'm not looking to "win".  I just want to see where the land lies here. I want to how many people will support your perception of what looks like extreme left and what you classify as moderate right.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> A
> 
> And what is my view of Trump?




As you were complaining that the Murdoch media was anti Trump, I assume you are pro Trump.

If that is not the case, please feel free to correct that view.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> You totally right Wayne. On this forum to this time  I would agree that you will win hands down.
> 
> I'm not looking to "win".  I just want to see where the land lies here. I want to how many people will support your perception of what looks like extreme left and what you classify as moderate right.



How about addressing my points rather than taking the coward's way out and asking for support from the Komrades, Komrade.

My point is absolutely sound and you are trying to garner your gang of leftist bullies to ignore the greater point.

Address my point, coward.


----------



## dutchie (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> There's a candidate for post of the year.  Just for interest I'll continue to take the bait.
> Lets  take Wayne totally seriously as I assume he wants.  What are other peoples views  on his two  statements.
> 
> 1) The "extreme Left" looks like _Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and 90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends
> ...




The reality shows that he (Wayne) is right.
You could add nearly all Universities to list 1)  (Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Harvard, et al)


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Give you a clue: better than anything else on offer there and the first to break the status quo and endless growth of china and destruction of the west, the first one to actually disengage from  decades and decades of foreign countries bombings.
> And someone outside the "deep-seated"/ complaisant powers in charge screwing citizens all over the world.
> If you can find me a well spoken, independent minded other American with a chance to win presidency and support individual responsability, not communism, i will support him in a sec.
> But all others are just sold to interests which are far from either the US or even the west.
> Sanders in non communist version, i i would appreciate too




For a man who is claiming "total power", he is letting the corona virus run riot in the USA, that could well be the end of the line for him as far as the voters are concerned.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

and just to be sure before someone goes accusing me of anything he was my latest political compass results which I took yesterday. Posted to Parler where it seems that some Green haired sjw moderator won't invent some reason to cancel me

https://share.par.pw/post/24a2ca7f33bf4fa99c21e673937be223


----------



## basilio (29 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> My point is absolutely sound and you are trying to garner your gang of leftist bullies to ignore the greater point.
> .




I've had my say Wayne. You have outlined how you see the world in political terms.
Dutchie has swing behind you and thrown practically all the world universities into the Gulag (only metaphorically or course . Perhaps even ironically ?)

I'm seriously interested to see other perspectives on this world view. 

Just to reiterate the question.


......Lets take Wayne totally seriously as I assume he wants. What are other peoples views on his two statements.

1) The "extreme Left" looks like _Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and 90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends

2) _Moderate left and right organisations (no extremists or exterminators of course..) unfairly censored look like _Zero Hedge, Katie Hopkins, Karl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, Tommy, Milo, PewDeePie, McGuiness, Rose McGowan, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, James Woods, Laura Loomer, Lyndsay Shepard, and even Graeme Lineham FFS_


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2020)

This kind of says it all IMO.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/walmart-slammed-over-controversial-t-shirt-slogans-091300207.html


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> I've had my say Wayne. You have outlined how you see the world in political terms.
> Dutchie has swing behind you and thrown practically all the world universities into the Gulag (only metaphorically or course . Perhaps even ironically ?)
> 
> I'm seriously interested to see other perspectives on this world view.



 Address the point, coward.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2020)

basilio said:


> 1) The "extreme Left" looks like _Antifa, BLM, Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, Owen Jones and 90% of Guardian writers, AOC and friends
> 
> 2) _Moderate left and right organisations (no extremists or exterminators of course..) unfairly censored look like _Zero Hedge, Katie Hopkins, Karl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, Tommy, Milo, PewDeePie, McGuiness, Rose McGowan, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, James Woods, Laura Loomer, Lyndsay Shepard, and even Graeme Lineham FFS_




Actually I've never heard of most of those people so I can't comment on their views.

The Guardian I occasionally read, I say their views are generally factually based, if that makes them "Left of Centre", so be it.

Maybe someone would like to quote an article by the Guardian that they view to be not based on fact.


----------



## bellenuit (29 June 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Give you a clue: better than anything else on offer there and the first to break the status quo and endless growth of china and destruction of the west, the first one to actually disengage from  decades and decades of foreign countries bombings.




That is what his supporters like to claim, but the reality is different.

He didn't break the status quo when it comes to corruption and the draining of the swamp. He has in fact made corruption part of his MO and rather than drain the swamp he has enlarged it with his own cronies.

He hasn't stopped the endless growth of China. All he has done is impose tariffs on imported Chinese goods, which is paid for by US citizens (something Trump doesn't seem to understand), and caused China to retaliate by banning or curtailing the import of many US farm products, which has hurt American farmers so badly that he has to spend billions supporting them for fear of losing their vote in the upcoming election. There has been a move away from relying exclusively on China by a large number of countries and corporations, but much of that was driven by seeing the consequences of losing China as a major supply chain due  to COVID-19 related issues and the unjustified retaliation of China against those who chose to investigate the virus deeper, plus its ongoing aggression against other South China Sea neighbours. Although I agree in principle with the curtailment of China and the reduction of our dependence on it, we need someone who has an effective and intelligent approach. I don't know if Biden will be that one, but Trump certainly is not. He is just a bumbling buffoon and China knows it. What he says is not what he does. He is a complete hypocrite and has no problem courting Chinese favour to help promote his daughters interests in China. In addition he tried to shore up a new trade deal with China, that many say is worse than what he had, as he is scared with what the continued fight will do to his re-election chances due to the consequence on US industry, selling the Uighurs down the river in the bargain. 

When it comes to the destruction of the West he has both shamefully sold out the West to Russian influence where it counts; Syria, NATO, Ukraine for instance as well as corrupting the institutions that differentiate the West from dictatorships.

He may have withdrawn the US from some conflicts, but again that was done unintelligently and may backfire due to his stupidity. His betrayal of the Kurds is a prime example. The withdrawal from the Syrian Turkish border region may have reduced bombing by the US, but it certainly hasn't diminished the bombing overall, with Syria and Russia taking advantage of the US withdrawal.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Actually I've never heard of most of those people so I can't comment on their views.
> 
> The Guardian I occasionally read, I say their views are generally factually based, if that makes them "Left of Centre", so be it.
> 
> Maybe someone would like to quote an article by the Guardian that they view to be not based on fact.



That's not really the point Horace. you can be banned on social media for quoting FBI data and actual peer-reviewed research if it doesn't suit the leftist narrative.... Which has actually happened.

Not to mention if you disagree with the nonsense radical gender theory and both actual biological science that has been established for centuries.


----------



## qldfrog (29 June 2020)

If there is a saviour for the western civilization, Russia will be the one..so our inability to ever agree
You support voted goverment takeovers: Ukraine with the help of Biden..
Syria you prefer el qaeda to a n enlighted ..well  dictator and  i am sure you were celebrating when khadafi was executed by the west.
Think of the people for a sec, the children the women who used to go to uni and turning engineers and GPs..now starved and raped
These kurds were not slaughtered by el Assad were they 10y ago?
The war the Russian minority had to fight in Ukraine just to live in their homeland
Going a bit further the Serbs hospitals blown up by NATO, Kosovo given over to Muslim fanatics and turned into a training field for the terrorists of Europe.
I would recommend reading Ghost by Richard Fiddler from ABC  podcasts fame about Constantinople.
Then as now, the orthodox remnant of the roman empire fought for 1500y against hords from Asia and later on against  Muslim jihadists.
When on its knees, its last request for help to the West/Pope was rejected on a mix of trade interests and principle.
Any parallel?
Where do you think you..your view and i would extend the West as EU and US without Trump stand?
Pretty clear but why learn from history, why think when you can parrot
Oh and i do not read Russia propaganda, i just travel outside of cruise ship and elsewhere than in tourists highlights
Over, do not leave your comfort zone..more dangerous than covid-19


----------



## IFocus (30 June 2020)

wayneL said:


> Address the point, coward.




A level of absurdity that's hard or impossible to understand!


----------



## wayneL (30 June 2020)

IFocus said:


> A level of absurdity that's hard or impossible to understand!



Commendable, coming to the aid of a fallen Komrade.

Kudos, really. It brings tears to my eyes.

However, it would be good if Lenin Jnr could finally address the argument at hand.

Waiting......


----------



## wayneL (30 June 2020)

Yet another censorship of the middle


----------



## cynic (30 June 2020)

Yes. He appears to have given an apt summation of the status quo:
https://caldronpool.com/the-book-burning-is-underway-stefan-molyneux-banned-from-youtube/amp/


----------



## IFocus (1 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Commendable, coming to the aid of a fallen Komrade.
> 
> Kudos, really. It brings tears to my eyes.
> 
> ...




Freedom of speech you realise includes freedom of silence a right under law in some instances that has been eroded ...........perhaps failure to see the irony  in a thread about freedom of speech in which you are claiming is being taken away!


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2020)

The right to silence, eh?


----------



## basilio (1 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> The right to silence, eh?



Nah.. 
Just the right to ignore people who are too ignorant , too biased and too nasty to want to  engage.
Your behaviour on this topic has ticked all those boxes Wayne. Wear it.


----------



## Joe Blow (1 July 2020)

I'm going to be shutting down all threads on topics relating to identity politics in the near future. So threads on race, gender, sexual orientation, and possibly religion, are no longer going to be permitted.

These threads are now way more trouble than they are worth. Google is now having issues with content on ASF on a regular basis. These issues always relate to content in threads on identity politics. Some new algorithm is at work and it started recently. Not surprisingly these threads also happen to the be the ones where people tend to attack and label each other. Some people let these topics get them far too emotional and angry.

Politics generally can continue to be discussed, but I'm advising everyone to please lay off the personal attacks and labeling because it's becoming tiresome.

The fundamental rules:

1. Stay on topic.
2. Discuss the issue, not each other.
3. No personal attacks and labelling. Keep it civil.


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> I'm going to be shutting down all threads on topics relating to identity politics in the near future. So threads on race, gender, sexual orientation, and possibly religion, are no longer going to be permitted.
> 
> These threads are now way more trouble than they are worth. Google is now having issues with content on ASF on a regular basis. These issues always relate to content in threads on identity politics. Some new algorithm is at work and it started recently. Not surprisingly these threads also happen to the be the ones where people tend to attack and label each other. Some people let these topics get them far too emotional and angry.
> 
> ...




Mea culpa. Got sucked into this yet again after promising myself that I wouldn't.

I invite some discussion on my central bankery thread, just as current but more important in the context of this forum.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> threads on race, gender, sexual orientation, and possibly religion, are no longer going to be permitted




Strongly agreed.

There's some relevance in discussing real politics on this forum, that is the actual stated policies of the government and proper opposition parties, since policy does impact business including listed companies in many ways. If the government, or a credible opposition party, has a policy that's going to have a major impact on whatever listed company or investors in general then it seems a reasonable point of discussion.

Likewise I see relevance in discussing broad concepts and possibilities such as, for example, high speed trains, electric cars or 5G networks since that sort of thing does have very real relevance to business and at least some listed companies either as builders or owners of infrastructure or because it competes with their existing business. For example high speed trains would compete against established airlines, electric cars compete against fuel suppliers, etc. There's some definite business relevance in that sort of thing, including to some large "household name" listed companies.

In contrast race, religion etc are "all pain, no gain" for ASF in my view. They're completely unrelated to the forum's primary subject, are unlikely to bring even one new member to it but may well offend some potential or existing members who then choose to not join / leave as a result. From a purely business perspective it's nothing to gain, only losses.

For things like music, holiday photos, fishing or whatever I see no problem so long as they're contained to a thread or two in General Chat and don't become the dominant focus of the forum. It's harmless and easily ignored by those not interested - just about every forum has an "off topic" section after all. 

If it was up to me then no discussion about race, gender, religion or religion-like subjects. It's all pain, no gain. ASF cannot win from that sort of discussion.

Commenting on the issue itself, I'll simply say that taking a "neutral" perspective on such subjects has become extremely difficult and that's _part_ of why it's a no-win proposition on ASF. Express your views on racism or sexism and regardless of what you say, most will seek to pigeon hole you as being on one side or the other. If you're not advocating for Team A then you must be advocating for Team B, the idea that you're taking a neutral stance simply doesn't compute with those beating the drums of conflict. That's the reality as I see it, and it precludes sensible discussion other than among people who all know each other extremely well personally.

Personally I'm pretty broad minded and don't recall ever using the "ignore" function on this forum. Reality though is the world mostly doesn't work like that these days, many do take offence rather easily, and ultimately ASF is a stock market forum, it's a business, and needs to operate with that in mind.


----------



## Joe Blow (1 July 2020)

There are so many interesting topics that are economics related and that can be discussed intelligently and in real depth.

I believe these identity politics issues are nothing more than a distraction from the real issues that face us. They are Facebook fodder for the outrage mobs. I'm sure that the powers that be are very happy that we are shouting at each other about which pronouns and bathrooms we should be using rather than paying close attention to what is really going on in the world.

We are living in unprecedented times. There is so much going on in the world economically and socioeconomically that we can and should be discussing.

These topics will never be discussed on most social media in any depth because social media isn't built for that type of discussion. I have joined and been observing ASX Facebook Groups for a few years now and have reached the conclusion that it is for short form content only, and very short form at that. It is superficial at best.

Forums are still the only venue where interesting technical topics can be discussed in real depth. Blogs can also do these topics well, but blogs take the form of an essay followed by comments. Forums are real discussions and debates that can incorporate file attachments, images and video content and can go on for years.

Let's start sinking our teeth into topics of real substance and leave the Facebook fodder to those who get off on that kind of stuff.

There's a software upgrade coming soon. I would like to change more than the software when that happens. I want to refocus ASF as well. More long form content of real value, more in depth discussions on important issues and more civility all around.


----------



## Joe Blow (1 July 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> In contrast race, religion etc are "all pain, no gain" for ASF in my view.




This is the sad reality. Sad only in the sense that these issues pretty much always descend into tribalism and along partisan lines. You rarely see any discussion of real value, just people standing their ground ideologically and then personal attacks and labelling when nether side is prepared to give an inch.

The best discussions at ASF are those in which there is a real exchange of knowledge and ideas and where people build on what others have contributed. Sometimes there are amazing insights to be had when intelligent and thoughtful people dissect a topic of real importance.

It would be nice to get back to that kind of discussion.


----------



## Joe Blow (2 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> I'm going to be shutting down all threads on topics relating to identity politics in the near future. So threads on race, gender, sexual orientation, and possibly religion, are no longer going to be permitted.




I will make this change officially when the forum software is upgraded so people can continue to chat away in those threads until then. I'm hoping to upgrade the software at the end of this month.

I should point out that we are only talking about a handful of threads, probably only a dozen or so out of the more than 25,000 that currently exist. I hope that this does not impact the level of posting as there is an almost infinite amount of interesting topics to debate and discuss that do not revolve around identity politics issues.


----------



## IFocus (2 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> There are so many interesting topics that are economics related and that can be discussed intelligently and in real depth.
> 
> I believe these identity politics issues are nothing more than a distraction from the real issues that face us. They are Facebook fodder for the outrage mobs. I'm sure that the powers that be are very happy that we are shouting at each other about which pronouns and bathrooms we should be using rather than paying close attention to what is really going on in the world.
> 
> ...





That was a pretty good post Joe certainly resonated with me.


----------



## Joe Blow (2 July 2020)

IFocus said:


> That was a pretty good post Joe certainly resonated with me.




It will be interesting to see if we lose some people once these divisive social issues are no longer discussed. I think that the anger and righteous indignation that some people feel when discussing these highly emotive wedge issues can be like a drug. Once you take that drug away they may go looking for it elsewhere.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (2 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> Sometimes there are amazing insights to be had when intelligent and thoughtful people dissect a topic of real importance.



...like not losing money


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> It will be interesting to see if we lose some people once these divisive social issues are no longer discussed. I think that the anger and righteous indignation that some people feel when discussing these highly emotive wedge issues can be like a drug. Once you take that drug away they may go looking for it elsewhere.




Beliefs versus science.

If someone has a "belief" in anything then it tends to be non-negotiable and something they aren't willing to even consider might not be true.

That reality lies at the heart of most of these debates. Entrenched positions and an unwillingness to even consider that they were either never true or that they were true in the past but for whatever reason are no longer true today.

There's the odd exception, there are some who will subject things to scrutiny and change their views based on the evidence, but that's not the majority. For an investor or trader though, that's exactly the approach that's needed. Act based on evidence and be quick to acknowledge mistakes and get out. Holding onto a losing position, because selling would require acknowledging that buying was a mistake, is a sure way to lose.

My own view of the world can be summed up by saying that there's a well known church in central Hobart which, as was well known at the time, had a gay nightclub out the back on church property. A good mix I thought, I'm neither gay nor religious but it seemed like a nice contrast, but the predictable outcome ensued.

Running a No Dams film on constant loop at the Hydro's centenary exhibition is another example of that sort of thinking. That one was more successful, at least partly because it was set up such that there was no means by which the public could switch it off.

If someone can't mock themselves and see the other side then I think they need to lighten up a bit really. Unfortunately we're living in a world where things are taken far too seriously and literally and the ability to self reflect has largely been lost.

Pragmatically, well the only solution for the forum is to end discussion on certain subjects so I'm not arguing against that in any way.


----------



## qldfrog (2 July 2020)

I noted that Joe mentioned issues with Google so irrespective of the relevance of dealing about race sex of angels etc here 
as forum owner Joe is pushed to ban these subjects
An irony not to be lost in a thread  named "the west has lost its freedom of speech.."
What has to be demonstrated is clearly demonstrated.we have lost our freedom of speech.
Obviously, ASF is stock finance dedicated and is not really to be concerned..but as a society, we should when Google dictates what we can write or not.
And what will be next? 
This is called widespread censorship.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

qldfrog said:


> I noted that Joe mentioned issues with Google so irrespective of the relevance of dealing about race sex of angels etc here
> as forum owner Joe is pushed to ban these subjects
> An irony not to be lost in a thread  named "the west has lost its freedom of speech.."
> What has to be demonstrated is clearly demonstrated.we have lost our freedom of speech.
> ...




I'd propose a middle route.

Any subject can be discussed, but as soon as anyone makes insulting remarks to a member of the forum (either named or on a "nudge-nudge we know who you mean" basis, or makes unsubstantiated allegations against certain groups in the community then the thread gets deleted.

This is obviously up to Joe to decide whether the line has been crossed.

That will allow civil discussion, but also draw a line in the sand on how the subject gets discussed.


----------



## qldfrog (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd propose a middle route.
> 
> Any subject can be discussed, but as soon as anyone makes insulting remarks to a member of the forum (either named or on a "nudge-nudge we know who you mean" basis, or makes unsubstantiated allegations against certain groups in the community then the thread gets deleted.
> 
> ...



Joe has to do what is best for the forum, and if google and FB implement censorship, he has to follow.
ASF does not need these subjects, but it can quickly become edgy: 
I believe it will not be long when any view not accepting the idea that co2 is causing global warming will be labelled fake news , and this domain is critical economically and so share market wise.
I worked 3y in mainland China so understand the need to put limits so that your business carries on, and @Joe Blow  mission is the forum survival/thriving, but the fact is hiding problems is not helping.
Joe has to ban these discussions if it blacklists asf with search engines etc.no choice
As individuals and investors, maybe we should actually try to profit from the dumbing of the population and the effect of propaganda and PC stupidity if we can not fight it.
This could maybe be an interesting thread.as for the fight for enlightment, let's just keep it within the ballot booth while we are still allowed..i remember Pauline being put in front of courts just to ensure the booth option was removed from her supporters..so option might diseappear..
Take comfort in the fact that in history, these denial of truth usually ends up in societal collapses


----------



## Dona Ferentes (3 July 2020)

As a youngster, I was an attendee with my family at Society of Friends (Quakers) . Like many we 'fell away'  but there was one really good practice I've remembered. Nature of the service was to sit in silence until moved by the Spirit. Then you could stand and talk. Others could respond or silence resume. You weren't to reply. Or control the discussion, let alone argue. Points were heard and the service moved on.

In other words, *consider carefully in context. *


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

qldfrog said:


> As individuals and investors, maybe we should actually try to profit from the dumbing of the population and the effect of propaganda and PC stupidity if we can not fight it.




What do you suggest ?


----------



## qldfrog (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> What do you suggest ?



Let's try to open a new thread.busy lately but will give it a try, basically need a 3 steps attack, detect new stupid trend, jump in share wise ideally ETF and ride it while the Gremlins pile up, observe trend jump out into the opposite domain when the trend/denial of facts is going to be blasted or just die off
Virus is one, climate warming co2, a second, then a gender/skin colour one as a 3rd..
Just starting points..


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Let's try to open a new thread.busy lately but will give it a try, basically need a 3 steps attack, detect new stupid trend, jump in share wise ideally ETF and ride it while the Gremlins pile up, observe trend jump out into the opposite domain when the trend/denial of facts is going to be blasted or just die off
> Virus is one, climate warming co2, a second, then a gender/skin colour one as a 3rd..
> Just starting points..




These sort of things are usually called scams, and although I agree with taking advantage of stupidity I think you have to give people some value for money.

But yes, the tech bubble was a result of speculation based by not a lot and it made people money so why not jump in on the trends ?


----------



## Joe Blow (3 July 2020)

This appears to be a purely commercial move by Google. Advertisers no longer wish to be associated with content that is in any way derogatory of certain movements or groups, BLM being one. There are others.

My concern has always been the way that people treat each other. I don't give two hoots about anyone's opinion. But I object to the way that certain threads seem to always descend into vitriol and personal attacks. It is political tribalism and it seems to be replacing religious tribalism in our increasingly secular society. It is in our DNA to adopt ideologies or world views as fundamental truths and to treat others who think differently as members of an enemy tribe. When you stand back and look at it objectively it is all very apparent. 

Sorry to use @Smurf1976 again as an example but he is obviously someone who is not emotionally invested in any ideology. His arguments are clearly and dispassionately articulated, as is the basis of his views. He never insults others and refuses to get down in the mud even when provoked. It is an approach that makes for constructive discussion and debate.

So what is it that makes people get emotional and angry when discussing certain issues? I'm sure personality plays a part, but being too emotionally invested in your own opinions and/or belief systems is clearly a key factor. Those who see themselves as belonging to an ideological team or group appear to be the most aggressive and this is because people who are members of an ideological tribe tend to be more certain of the truth of their beliefs because it is constantly being reinforced and validated by other members of the tribe.

Happiness also appears to be a factor. Unhappy people are more likely to be angry at others. My old man was an unhappy person and those around him paid the price for his unhappiness. Anger is a symptom of unhappiness. I know this from personal experience. Most of us know angry people and see how that anger manifests itself in their lives. Anger is like hate, it's toxic and destructive and it infects almost everything it touches. It ruins lives.

So what's the answer? I don't know. But the easy answer is to shut down the discussion of certain topics because I don't think that things are likely to change. The world is becoming an increasingly ugly place, especially online. I guarantee you that if we were all in one room together discussing controversial issues there wouldn't be insults flying around to the same extent because we would all be forced to look each other in the eye. But online the keyboard warrior effect takes hold and it affects some people more than others. Some people are capable of treating others with respect in person and online while others are not. 

ASF is a stock market forum. That's the bottom line and everyone needs to respect its purpose. The General Chat forum has always been an indulgence. Its intention was to provide a place where people could discuss issues that were not related to the stock market. For the most part it works, but in some ways it doesn't. There are no insults or personal attacks in the Travel Photos thread, but visit some of the threads on religion, gay marriage and immigration and it's a different story. So logically it makes sense to get rid of the topics that cause the problems. From a management perspective that's the sensible decision to make. The other alternative, which is to ask people to treat others with respect, to play the ball not the man, to be civil at all times has been tried and has failed many, many times. It simply doesn't work and I have now accepted that.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

I can't argue with anything you said Joe, it's your forum and you must do what you think it's best.

Unfortunately what you say pretty clearly demonstrates that we have lost at least in part our freedom of speech.

The Israel Folau incident demonstrates that pretty well. Remarks which once were treated with just a sneer by the majority were latched onto by the outrage brigade and the same commercial pressures that are being applied to you were applied to his employers and he was hounded out of the game.

Obviously and understandably  you don't want the same to happen to you. In that way I understand and agree with your decision, and that threads that contain personal vitriol should be deleted. So be it , it's the way of our now ever restrictive world.

From a "Leftie tribalist".


----------



## Joe Blow (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I can't argue with anything you said Joe, it's your forum and you must do what you think it's best.
> 
> Unfortunately what you say pretty clearly demonstrates that we have lost at least in part our freedom of speech.




It's possible to have nothing to do with Google. Unfortunately I am not in that position so I must abide by their rules and guidelines.

It's easy to set up a blog or a forum and use none of Google's services and just post away. Depending on the content you may or may not rank in Google's search engine but you can certainly create whatever lawful content you like and link to it from other websites.

That freedom of speech isn't gone. But if you choose to use services associated with Google, particularly revenue generating services, then you have to abide by their rules regarding acceptable content.


----------



## qldfrog (3 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> It's possible to have nothing to do with Google. Unfortunately I am not in that position so I must abide by their rules and guidelines.
> 
> It's easy to set up a blog or a forum and use none of Google's services and just post away. Depending on the content you may or may not rank in Google's search engine but you can certainly create whatever lawful content you like and link to it from other websites.
> 
> That freedom of speech isn't gone. But if you choose to use services associated with Google, particularly revenue generating services, then you have to abide by their rules regarding acceptable content.



Fully understand but defacto it means we have lost freedom of speech, this is the sorry fact.and i i agr with you Joe that you have to abide to google might.no choice sadly.
I hope it will let people reflect before criticism of the Putin and Xi of this world.are we really better...


----------



## qldfrog (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> These sort of things are usually called scams, and although I agree with taking advantage of stupidity I think you have to give people some value for money.
> 
> But yes, the tech bubble was a result of speculation based by not a lot and it made people money so why not jump in on the trends ?



As pointed in my point fist detect early trend and jump in with the Gremlins..trend following..just separate from the talk and know how to get out as for scam being taking advantage of people, a carbon tax levied on only specific countries, how do you name that..and this is just an example
Or locking an country economy for less death than drownings? I believe Australia still allows cars driving in 2020...we need to be able to take a step back, let's start this new thread
Basically disjointed facts vs media popular belief and how to profit from it be it existing trends or coming up one:it will be controversial i am aware


----------



## Joe Blow (3 July 2020)

qldfrog said:


> Fully understand but defacto it means we have lost freedom of speech, this is the sorry fact.and i i agr with you Joe that you have to abide to google might.no choice sadly.
> I hope it will let people reflect before criticism of the Putin and Xi of this world.are we really better...




Nobody really has freedom of speech on someone else's property. Take YouTube for example. That's Google's property. They own and control the platform so they control what is acceptable and what isn't. There are a lot of complaints about the way Google manages that property but it is theirs nonetheless.

I don't have freedom of speech in anyone else's home. People can kick me out if I say something they find offensive. But in your own home you have freedom of speech.

In public settings it's a little more problematic and I think that is where people are losing ground in the battle for free speech. Unlike YouTube and other privately owned online platforms, public spaces should be freer in countries like Australia but things are changing. If the battle for free speech is to be fought, that is the battleground. It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.




Yes. How would we view universities ? Public or private ? 

The ABC is publicly owned so "theoretically"  there should be free speech there, but it's muzzled by the "you can't say that" mob.

Anyway, I don't want to draw this out too much, there are obviously lots of twists and turns to this topic and if this thread is going anyway it may be wasted time.


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2020)

The private property thing is absolutely fair enough especially if your space is considered a publisher which seems to be the case on ASF? Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I now more fully understand your position on this and it's commercial necessity

However those other spaces are regarded ,for the moment at least, as platforms, and may even be regarded utilities in the same way that the telecoms are.

It would be less of a bitter pill to swallow if the censorship was equal on both sides. Joe, I think you have been absolutely even handed on ASF, but as far as silicon valley platforms are concerned it is not even at all.

Organisations such as 4nt1f4 are given an almost completely free-range to say and organised whatever they like, even to the point of inciting violence. Such freedoms are not granted to anyone even remotely on the other side.

Stock standard conservatives and even classical liberals are routinely censored and/or deplatformed, never mind the extremists; this is where many of us can get very cranky.

Anyhooz, such is how it is and it will be interesting how much the non silicon valley platforms such as Parler will be able the challenge the hegemony of Google and Twitter et al.


----------



## basilio (3 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> Nobody really has freedom of speech on someone else's property. Take YouTube for example. That's Google's property. They own and control the platform so they control what is acceptable and what isn't. There are a lot of complaints about the way Google manages that property but it is theirs nonetheless.
> 
> I don't have freedom of speech in anyone else's home. People can kick me out if I say something they find offensive. But in your own home you have freedom of speech.
> 
> In public settings it's a little more problematic and I think that is where people are losing ground in the battle for free speech. Unlike YouTube and other privately owned online platforms, public spaces should be freer in countries like Australia but things are changing. If the battle for free speech is to be fought, that is the battleground. It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.




I certainly see Joes point on the seemingly inevitable slide into very strong/extreme views being promoted across ASF and the web in general.  Inevitably this damages t the forum and puts people off.

The conversation has been had a number of times. Going totally "vanilla" so to speak is an option. It is exceptionally good to share quality technical/practical ideas with thoughtful people. Whirpool is an excellent example of that but I believe they are very strong on keeping everyone nice and I also understand they have zero tolerance for allowing divisive topics to get away.

I remember posting some references to other forums that make it clear they won't tolerate nastiness.

Going back to the theme of this thread - "The West has lost its Freedom of Speech ".. Hmmn The premise of the title wasn't that promising for a nuanced and balanced conversation was it ?

And in reality of course there is no absolute Freedom of Speech. I might have tried to point that out at some stage. 

It should be bleedingly obvious . Libel, slander, scams, hate calls, casual or deliberate nastiness, holocaust denial, racist tropes all come to mind as examples where one persons "Freedom to Speak" violates another persons "Freedom from assault, abuse or injury."


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Going back to the theme of this thread - "The West has lost its Freedom of Speech ".. Hmmn The premise of the title wasn't that promising for a nuanced and balanced conversation was it ?




Come on Bas, the question could have been set in a Humanities exam.

"The West has lost it's freedom of speech - Discuss" .



No one has to agree with the premise of the thread.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

basilio said:


> I remember posting some references to other forums that make it clear they won't tolerate nastiness.




Depends on how "nastiness" is defined.

Some people object to the statement "all lives matter". Do you object to that statement ?

(I can hear Joe saying "here we go again", so treat this post as rhetorical if you like).


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Depends on how "nastiness" is defined.
> 
> Some people object to the statement "all lives matter". Do you object to that statement ?
> 
> (I can hear Joe saying "here we go again", so treat this post as rhetorical if you like).



BOOM!

... and I ain't sayin' nuttin' more than that.


----------



## basilio (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Come on Bas, the question could have been set in a Humanities exam.
> 
> "The West has lost it's freedom of speech - Discuss" .
> 
> ...




Good point... when it is presented as a question on a Humanities exam. But in that context it still could be presented in a more neutral tone ie Has the West lost its Freedom of Speech ?

Unfortunately it is still an exceptionally broad statement which opens up a million cans of worms even if presented as an exam question.  I'd even wonder what sort of course or exam would present such a topic ?
A Philosophy course ? A Legal studies ?  A Course in  Western Cultural Traditions ? 

On this thread there isn't much subtlety. The title was a Call to Arms.


----------



## rederob (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> "The West has lost its freedom of speech - Discuss".



As Joe has several times inferred, you can't lose what you do not already have. 
And if you or anyone thinks that your home is a sanctuary then I suggest you read the many laws on national security.
Even within this ASF site posters who indulge in libel can be brought to account.

Posting on non-shares topics would be far more useful if they followed the ASF practice relating to the stock market where posters included tables, charts, links or other references to make their case.  Our unfounded opinions or beliefs are best kept to ourselves.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Even within this ASF site posters who indulge in libel can be brought to account.




Good.

Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.

I can't see any reasonable person thinking we should be able to do that, and any moderator would be justified in removing posts that did.


----------



## rederob (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Good.
> Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.



I am sure Joe would be required to provide source details if push came to shove, so your anonymity is illusory unless you have forever used a VPN.
And never underestimate the power of people with deep pockets!


----------



## basilio (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Good.
> 
> Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.




I don't believe that is the case Rumpy.

One of the excellent points of this forum has been the challenge and exposure of some very shonky financial scams. I believe some of the people who were  accused of malpractice have been giving Joe a kicking for allowing the comments to be made. So that's to do with posters making  (supported) allegations of public figures which could affect their reputations.

But it is also interesting to consider how a court might view a slanderous attack on a seemingly anonymous poster. If, for arguments sake, a series of comments were made about poster X saying they were clearly a pedophile/a thief/ drug taker/ a scam artist/ a whatever-you-want.. and these comments destroyed the persons reputation amongst other people on the forum would that constitute an actionable  behaviour ?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

basilio said:


> I don't believe that is the case Rumpy.
> 
> One of the excellent points of this forum has been the challenge and exposure of some very shonky financial scams. I believe some of the people who were  accused of malpractice have been giving Joe a kicking for allowing the comments to be made. So that's to do with posters making  (supported) allegations of public figures which could affect their reputations.
> 
> But it is also interesting to consider how a court might view a slanderous attack on a seemingly anonymous poster. If, for arguments sake, a series of comments were made about poster X saying they were clearly a pedophile/a thief/ drug taker/ a scam artist/ a whatever-you-want.. and these comments destroyed the persons reputation amongst other people on the forum would that constitute an actionable  behaviour ?




I'm pretty sure that if such things were said then Joe would delete those posts and probably throw the accuser off the site.

I think people here are reasonable enough to be able to filter out opinions from fact so  the credibility damage may not be great. 

I think it's pretty risky for an anonymous poster to go public and reveal him/herself in a court if they sue for defamation. The court may take the view that the plaintiff has caused damage to themselves by going public whereas they could have retained their anonymity and just left the site or sought some action from the Moderator first.


----------



## basilio (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm pretty sure that if such things were said then Joe would delete those posts and probably throw the accuser off the site.
> 
> I think people here are reasonable enough to be able to filter out opinions from fact so  the credibility damage may not be great.
> 
> I think it's pretty risky for an anonymous poster to go public and reveal him/herself in a court if they sue for defamation. The court may take the view that the plaintiff has caused damage to themselves by going public whereas they could have retained their anonymity and just left the site or sought some action from the Moderator first.




Take it away from this site Rumpy. How about situations for example where  survivors of school shootings and other mass murders in the US are accused of being fakes, scammers and deep state actors? Could/should they take action for repeated outrageous slanders ? Or is that just a necessary price of free expression ?

You suggest people are reasonable enough to filter opinions from facts ?

Seriously? I don't want to dwell on ASF posters here but any dive into the conspiracy theorists, denialists and general  hubris of our societies would challenge that view. 

Just one example of where we are now in terms of rational thinking.

*We don't live in a communist country!': battle over masks rages in Texas *
 Texas 

Coronavirus cases are rising, but despite the exhortations of health experts, many Texans just don’t want to wear a mask
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/02/texas-masks-coronavirus-covid-battle


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Take it away from this site Rumpy. How about situations for example where survivors of school shootings and other mass murders in the US are accused of being fakes, scammers and deep state actors? Could/should they take action for repeated outrageous slanders ? Or is that just a necessary price of free expression ?
> 
> You suggest people are reasonable enough to filter opinions from facts ?




Well bas, you started off with a referral to this forum, so that's where I stayed, but if you want to move the goalposts to another country then I certainly do believe that the people you mentioned should be able to take defamation action against those peddling false accusations.

I think successful prosecution would be a big deterrent to the making of false claims, but the US is not big on defamation suits and tends to favour the defendants. The Elon Musk case is one example of this.

The verdict in such a case may well be different in Australia.


----------



## Joe Blow (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes. How would we view universities ? Public or private ?
> 
> The ABC is publicly owned so "theoretically"  there should be free speech there, but it's muzzled by the "you can't say that" mob.




These are a little more complicated. I was thinking of the streets and public spaces such as parks. The ABC and universities are different beasts entirely and I don't have an easy answer to that one.



wayneL said:


> The private property thing is absolutely fair enough especially if your space is considered a publisher which seems to be the case on ASF? Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I now more fully understand your position on this and it's commercial necessity
> 
> However those other spaces are regarded ,for the moment at least, as platforms, and may even be regarded utilities in the same way that the telecoms are.




The problem with YouTube is that nothing even comes close to its scale or reach in terms of online broadcasting. In a sense it is an incredible achievement. I remember about 12 or 15 years ago Google was losing money hand over fist with YouTube as they were burning bandwidth like crazy and couldn't monetise it. But now they have transformed it into a media powerhouse that is unmatched online.

I'm not saying they aren't biased and I'm definitely not saying they don't have political agendas. But they are a media company and do have the right to control what is considered acceptable content because they ultimately answer to advertisers. I think that sometimes people forget who wields the power. YouTube is only the giant media monolith that it is because advertisers are handing over money to advertise on the platform. Google answers to them for commercial reasons. No advertisers, no YouTube.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

Joe Blow said:


> I'm not saying they aren't biased and I'm definitely not saying they don't have political agendas.




Youtube is great for instructional stuff like  mechanics, science, aviation and a lot of suchlike topics.

I wasn't aware it was also into the social stuff and wouldn't watch it anyway.


----------



## rederob (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Youtube is great for instructional stuff like  mechanics, science, aviation and a lot of suchlike topics.
> 
> I wasn't aware it was also into the social stuff and wouldn't watch it anyway.



There are music videos on Youtube with multi*BILLION* view counts:

Chances are most Westerners haven't heard of some!


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

rederob said:


> There are music videos on Youtube with multi*BILLION* view counts:
> 
> Chances are most Westerners haven't heard of some!




Something for every taste !

Good one here, but I think we should stop after this.


----------



## macca (3 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Something for every taste !
> 
> Good one here, but I think we should stop after this.





Ok did any bloke actually look at the WEATHER forecast, 28c and snowing I think it said


----------



## rederob (3 July 2020)

macca said:


> Ok did any bloke actually look at the WEATHER forecast, 28c and snowing I think it said



According to the sin optics it was "hot."


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2020)

macca said:


> Ok did any bloke actually look at the WEATHER forecast, 28c and snowing I think it said




There were two high pressure systems and a warm front I believe.


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2020)

It is interesting how some things can bring us all into broad agreement.

Perhaps we are not so different from each other after all


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2020)

It is really interesting, I usually stop and have a chat with a group of elderly mainly widowed women on my morning walk.
They were talking about the extreme PC world this morning, they would be seen as extremely right wing on here, I didnt say anything just smiled to myself.
I think we are going to have to wait untill the next set of elections, to see where the majority fall.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2020)

I'll write something more thoughtful tomorrow but for now some music......

Everyone should listen carefully to the lyrics.

Now realise it was written in 1988, about 7 years before most had ever heard the term "internet" and well before Google, YouTube or Facebook were a thing. Or ASF for that matter.

Media control over information is not a new thing. All that's changed is who runs it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2020)

A few random thoughts in response to Joe's posts and others recently in this thread.

Note that this is just my thoughts really and in no way am I aiming to put myself or anyone else on a pedestal here. Bit hard to express some of it without sounding like that, but that isn't the intent. 

Freedom of speech:

Undeniably on private property you have the freedom to do only what the owner allows you do do. Just because the law doesn't ban it doesn't mean the owner can't.

My observation however is that there's a generational difference in that the Baby Boomers and Gen X broadly see any encroachment onto someone else's expression of their views as a drastic step to be used only in extreme circumstances. It's in the same category as making a citizen's arrest or pointing a real loaded gun at someone, it's drastic stuff.

In contrast Gen Y and especially Gen Z seem far more willing to abandon the concept, to the point that some will take the view that by default it doesn't exist unless someone specifically informs them that it does, in which case they take that to be a one-off. There's a definite generational gap there I think.

Bubble:

I commented on another thread about three state bull markets and other technical patterns showing up in all sorts of things unrelated to investing. Pop music is a classic example of that, so is the popularity of many TV shows and even things like home decorating trends.

Now I'll throw the stone and suggest that the same applies to many of these contentious issues. Climate change, race, religion or whatever - plot it on a chart and if you've got all the data you usually do find that three stages ending in a blowoff and collapse of the whole thing.

A collapse in the political movement that is, not a collapse in the underlying issue. We're still trashing the planet and there's still racial discrimination, that a political movement based on it implodes doesn't make the underlying problem go away.

Angry people:

A practical life observation is that those who take themselves too seriously usually pay a huge price for doing so. It wrecks careers, it wrecks marriages, it wrecks friendships and so on. It also causes heart disease and is suspected of causing cancer.

If you can't see the funny side of even the most drastic situation then you'd be wise to lighten up a bit. Seriously. Just because the traffic's gridlocked or the dam really is about run dry doesn't warrant sitting there fuming about it, indeed doing so isn't going to help in the slightest. You're better off doing a rain dance - probably won't make it rain but at least it'll cheer everyone up a bit.

Seriously, well there's a lot to be angry about at the moment indeed I don't know anyone who hasn't lost _something_ with this wretched virus. Money, their job, the ability to travel, recreational activities, whatever. Everyone's lost something but getting angry really isn't going to help anyone there.

The harsh reality is that life does throw some crap and few get through without some major drama along the way. Serious illness, being involved in a serious accident, divorce, witnessing a crime or being a victim of one, being sued, becoming unemployed, going bankrupt either as such in a legal sense or near enough in practice, etc. Very few get by without some sort of major drama - the key is focusing on the best way forward from whatever situation you're in.

Easy for me you say? Well I've been at both ends of the spectrum financially, I've been out of work in the past yes and so on. I've had my share of crap as has just about everyone. I'm not special and neither are most.

If you're living anywhere in Australia, have a roof over your head and are in reasonable health well then things could be worse so focus on the positives. You're better off getting some daily exercise, doing a TAFE course or getting any work you can find no matter what it is than to be sitting around stewing about it. If you can't earn money well then you may as well learn something or get fit - doing _something_ useful sure beats getting angry and going nowhere.

Rules:

Reality is pretty much nobody gets to do what they want in life.

Workers - well you've got someone known as a supervisor, foreman, team leader etc who calls the shots.

If you are the team leader - well you've got a manager to report to.

If you are the manager - you've got senior management to report to.

If you're senior management - you've got shareholders and/or government demanding you perform.

OK, what about sole traders then? Plumbers, electricians and so on? They don't have a boss, right? Yeah but they do have customers who are the real boss, added problem that some of them try to avoid paying.

What about Police then? Can't get much better than that surely, you _are_ the law after all.

Well no actually, you only get to enforce the laws that are made by others, you get no say in them whatsoever, and you have to enforce the ones you don't agree with too. No real choice at all.

What about politicians then? They make the laws after all.

Well no, they don't get to do everything they want either. They've still got to retain the confidence of the party if they're going to be leader of it. They've still got to convince the public to re-elect them every 3 or 4 years and so on. Apart from actual dictators in communist countries, being in government doesn't give you absolute control even if you really are the Prime Minister or President.

What about celebrities then? All that money and fame gives them the ability to do whatever they like surely?

Nope, wrong again.

Pick any long lasting singer or band, anyone who's been around since the 1980's or at least 1990's and is still around today, and they've all got the same problem.

Despite having perhaps a dozen studio albums, the reality is that the general public most associates them with one particular song and there's a few others that everyone knows whilst the other 95% of their music is known only to fans. Usually that song is one of the earlier ones so it'll be 80's or 90's not something recent.

And so in 2019 (or 2020 if not for the pandemic.....) they're still on stage singing something that was the last track recorded for the album back in 1986 that they never liked anyway. Reality though is the record company insisted on releasing it as a single, the public sent it to number 1, and now they're forever stuck with it and simply can't escape it. That they don't personally like it is completely irrelevant - they're singing it live that's a given, no real choice at all there unless they're wanting to kill all future tours and festival bookings.

OK then, so if anything from being a cop to a singer doesn't do it, what about actual Royalty then?

Again not really. Queen's in lockdown too you see, she didn't escape that one. She can't really get out of all those ceremonial things and hand waving and all that either. So cross being a member of the Royal family off the list of ways to avoid doing things you'd rather not do.

So basically nobody gets to do everything they want and we all have to do things we'd rather not be doing. Such is life, no point arguing about it really. Get on with it then......

Business approach:

If the aim is to make a profit then ultimately you're running a business and need a businesslike approach to it.

Share trading is a business.

Plumbers and painters are first and foremost running a business. The actual plumbing or painting is just what they're selling but they're businesspeople.

Same with anything from the legal profession to sex work. Business is business and if the aim is to maximise profit, or even simply survive, then you need to do what works not what you personally like.

Now if you're running a business then in order to do what works you need to be open to all possibilities. Being "rusted on" to one way of doing things, because that's what you've always done, is a sure way to fail since even if it's working now a point will almost certainly come where it's obsolete.

Go back to 1995 and you couldn't be in a much more powerful position than to be the Editor of a major newspaper. Controlling what the public reads is a hugely powerful position. 25 years later and such people still exist but they no longer wield anywhere near as much power indeed the entire business model is slowly but surely failing.

Also in 1995 broadcast TV and renting video tapes were "can't lose" businesses since between them they controlled 99.9%+ of what anyone watched at home, the other 0.1% being tapes bought outright. Well today one business is outright gone and the other one's in serious decline.

Then of course there's fashion and music. Simply looking at the clothes or listening to the music will immediately give you a pretty good idea of its age since all styles and sounds become outdated and usually rather quickly. Those of a certain age will no doubt remember a certain trio of songwriters and producers by the name of Stock, Aitken and Waterman circa 1986-89. Everywhere at one point, famous in their own right, then it all imploded as such things always do when the public's taste changes but those involved fail to move with the times. Their success fell in a heap pretty quickly after their "one style fits all" production line approach to pop music fell out of favour rather dramatically.

No matter how lucrative something is, it ends up obsolete at some point. Those who survive are the ones who not only identify that what they're doing now is coming to an end but they identify what's next and successfully make the transition. Those who fail to do that are doomed with the only question being the pace of decline which depending on the industry can be anything from weeks to decades. 

Being rusted onto an ideology or a thought that something is the best way is never a good idea. Even if it actually is the best way now, you need to be ready to abandon it if that changes which sooner or later it most likely will.

As I said, there's no attempt at putting anyone on pedestals here. Just my random thoughts before Joe closes the thread (and noting that I've kept right off the contentious subject as such which is intentional).


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

Thanks for that Smurf.

I definitely agree about taking things too seriously and mourn the passing of some great satire shows throughout the years like Mavis Bramstone, Max Gillies and so on. Many of the things they said would would be shut down by the PC brigade today, and have been. Just look at Fawlty Towers which was actually satirising the white English upper class but the outrage brigade shut it down because they couldn't see the joke.

I wish some could come along and satirise political correctness but no tv station would show it because its not you know...

So can we profit from all this. Making black armbands and protest banners would be a good start, as would making docos of all the injustices of white middle class society , but the ABC has probably got there first.  (satire).

So yes the world has moved on, but we can still ask the question do we like the way things are today, if not why not and how do we change ?. Is the world a better place or a worse place not than say 20 years ago ?. The answer is pretty obvious, better in some ways , worse in others. As always, the way forward is to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives. Sorry if that sounds like management speak but its getting late and I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight.


----------



## dutchie (5 July 2020)

Wow – I can’t believe how short sighted the sheep can be.

This will be my final post on this thread (thank god for that they all baaaaa’d)

The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.

(Sorry Joe but if you are making money from the Society then the Society owns you or at least you have an obligation to that Society.)

The downfall is where we are headed now and if we stay quiet about it and keep making concessions then eventually our freedom is gone and apart from other major losses there will be *no* Forum allowed.

Before you place your next trade read “1984”, by George Orwell (which can easily be found in PDF form).


----------



## rederob (5 July 2020)

dutchie said:


> The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.



*THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE TIME AND TIME AGAIN HERE THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH FREEDOMS.
*


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> *THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE TIME AND TIME AGAIN HERE THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH FREEDOMS.*



Who can speak?
What can I say?
What can't I say?
Can one person say something that I cannot?
Can I say something another person cannot?
*WHO DECIDES?
*
Wanna breed extremists? Stop people speaking.


----------



## rederob (5 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Who can speak?
> What can I say?
> What can't I say?
> Can one person say something that I cannot?
> ...



All nations have *LAWS*.
If you don't understand how they affect your rights then you might be better off not testing them.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> All nations have *LAWS*.
> If you don't understand how they affect your rights then you might be better off not testing them.




Laws don't take precedence over rights. That's why we have a Court system that can tell politicians to get st*ffed if necessary.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> All nations have *LAWS*.
> If you don't understand how they affect your rights then you might be better off not testing them.



Ohh.... You mean like the recording of (purported)  *non crime hate speech", such as happens in the UK?

Or trumped up "disturbing the peace" charges like here?

Pulleeeeze. It's almost all subjective, according to whichever big knob is bringing the coppers.


----------



## rederob (5 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Laws don't take precedence over rights. That's why we have a Court system that can tell politicians to get st*ffed if necessary.



Courts uphold the laws - it's their job.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Courts uphold the laws - it's their job.




Not always. You have demonstrated your ignorance of the principle of Separation of Powers.


----------



## rederob (5 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Not always. You have demonstrated your ignorance of the principle of Separation of Powers.



Your opinion is incorrect, and has nothing to do with the fact that Courts uphold laws.  
If you believe otherwise, then show why.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Your opinion is incorrect, and has nothing to do with the fact that Courts uphold laws.
> If you believe otherwise, then show why.




Certainly. I showed you this once before in another thread, and it proves you don't learn from your mistakes.

Courts uphold the Constitution and if laws interfere with that, the Court strikes the law down, thus:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-18/bob-brown-wins-high-court-challenge-to-protest-laws/9060834

Apology ?


----------



## rederob (5 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Certainly. I showed you this once before in another thread, and it proves you don't learn from your mistakes.
> 
> Courts uphold the Constitution and if laws interfere with that, the Court strikes the law down, thus:
> 
> ...



You keep forgetting that it's still the *COURTS *upholding the law.
In any case, which "rights" which are unlawful, able to be freely exercised?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

rederob said:


> You keep forgetting that it's still the *COURTS *upholding the law.
> In any case, which "rights" which are unlawful, able to be freely exercised?




Waste of time replying Robbie, I gave you a case where Courts overruled the law  but you just can't understand the concept of Separation if Powers so I suggest you do some research on our Constitution.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2020)

dutchie said:


> The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.




I agree totally with the point you're making.

Pragmatically though, well as I see we're not going to fix the problem here so there's no point killing ASF, a valuable resource as a stock market forum, for the sake of making a point. I think Joe's been pretty patient thus far in that regard (and so far as I can work out he's also firmly in the "free speech" camp).

It's a practical reality though. We're not going to fix it here and if it's going to kill the forum well then that's not really helping anyone.

Looking at the whole thing more broadly, none of this is new. There were people talking about quite a bit of what's lead to the current overall situation in Tasmania during the 1980's.

Yes, Tasmania. A place that's of minimal importance nationally and of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in terms of global politics. Quite a few knew what was coming though.

Brilliant foresight? Not really no. Just that a few had realised that the train had left the station and that unless something changed, the ultimate destination was a given. Once the West started down the track of currency debasement and deindustrialisation the rest was pretty much inevitable unless drastic change occurred. You can't rip real wealth away from the masses and hollow out the entire economy without serious repercussions. Once that started, the rest was really just detail as to how it unfolded.

By about 1995 the West was basically doubling down on money printing and the Fed got going with perpetual bubble blowing. Give or take a few years for each detail it's when the whole going on holidays, bidding up house prices and watching reality TV thing was getting going and manufacturing was increasingly grinding to a halt whilst the current account deficit / surplus stopped being considered as even newsworthy whereas once it was headlines.

There was some debate on another thread on ASF about nuclear power and I pointed out that purely as a means of generating electricity for use on land it doesn't really stack up economically in Australia and that the reason to do it would be if the real aim was plutonium for military purposes and the electricity was just a convenient by-product. Fossil fuels are cheaper or if we don't want those due to emissions well then renewables with large scale storage are also cheaper.

That debate got a bit tense but somewhat surprisingly nobody mentioned the elephant in the room. 

What's this assumption that we don't want plutonium? What's this assumption that Australia won't be pursuing a nuclear weapons program at some point? Don't anyone start mentioning treaties - all that sort of thing is falling apart around us so let's not pretend anything there.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the world is marching toward war at an alarming pace and that if the US falls in a heap or can't be relied upon well then realistically Australia's in a very vulnerable position. I won't be surprised at all if Australia massively ramps up its military and that includes acquiring nuclear or other "mass destruction" weapons. I also won't be surprised if such a move comes in the near future. Things are escalating rapidly and the pace of that escalation is itself increasing.

Free speech? Well I sure as hell agree there's a problem there. It's just that I can't see how stuffing up this forum is going to fix it.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Free speech? Well I sure as hell agree there's a problem there. It's just that I can't see how stuffing up this forum is going to fix it.




Actually I think the debate on this thread has been pretty civil, if a bit tense sometimes, and its bought some good points to light, considering it's a General Chat thread. 



Smurf1976 said:


> What's this assumption that we don't want plutonium? What's this assumption that Australia won't be pursuing a nuclear weapons program at some point? Don't anyone start mentioning treaties - all that sort of thing is falling apart around us so let's not pretend anything there.
> 
> I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the world is marching toward war at an alarming pace and that if the US falls in a heap or can't be relied upon well then realistically Australia's in a very vulnerable position. I won't be surprised at all if Australia massively ramps up its military and that includes acquiring nuclear or other "mass destruction" weapons. I also won't be surprised if such a move comes in the near future. Things are escalating rapidly and the pace of that escalation is itself increasing.




I think you may well be correct.

If we are going to buy long range hypersonic weapons there seems little point in arming them with a little bit of TNT when you can make a really big bang and therefore have a bigger deterrent. I'd probably be looking for some sort of defence pact with Japan who has the nuclear technology and a similar underlying desire for a nuclear deterrent, and they are right on the doorstep of you know who.

So Australia does not necessarily need it's own reactors. We ship uranium to Japan, they process it and send back plutonium and the other nuclear material and we put this in our hypersonic weapons.

Thus we we get the benefit without attracting too much attention.

I wish we didn't have to go that far, but as you say the world is changing fast and we have to keep up or fall off.


----------



## moXJO (6 July 2020)

Twitter mobs now own speech. If they don't like it they attack your advertising revenue streams, or customers.

Shhhhh, woke mobs became "big brother".


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Waste of time replying Robbie, I gave you a case where Courts overruled the law  but you just can't understand the concept of Separation if Powers so I suggest you do some research on our Constitution.



All you have shown is that the court *system *works in a particular way. 
*You *have proven my point that it *is the COURTS which are upholding the law.*
Aside from that you cannot make a valid point in relation to *rights *and law in keeping with your claims.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> All you have shown is that the court *system *works in a particular way.
> *You *have proven my point that it *is the COURTS which are upholding the law.*
> Aside from that you cannot make a valid point in relation to *rights *and law in keeping with your claims.




Did you even read that story I posted ?

The High Court over ruled a *LAW* that infringed on *RIGHTS*.

What part of that don't you understand ?

Of course courts uphold the law *EXCEPT* when those laws infringe on *RIGHTS*.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you even read that story I posted ?
> 
> The High Court over ruled a *LAW* that infringed on *RIGHTS*.
> 
> ...



The High Court is a *Court*.
Courts uphold laws.
Where is an example that courts have infringed on rights?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> The High Court is a *Court*.
> Courts uphold laws.
> Where is an example that courts have infringed on rights?




You find an example. Don't try and twist the discussion.

Courts uphold RIGHTS over LAWS.

Do you understand that ?


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> You find an example. Don't try and twist the discussion.
> 
> Courts uphold RIGHTS over LAWS.
> 
> Do you understand that ?



I cannot find an example that agrees with your points.
Laws embed our rights.
Courts then uphold the laws.
There is nowhere that it is different in Australia.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2020)

Don't forget the use of lawfare and the civil court system.

This is not necessarily about law, or even winning. This can be used to break someone's bank, or sully their reputation vexatiously.

We see this with our Western legal system all the time.

One step down is the use of a compliant media to trash someone's reputation and income, therefore stifling free speech via vexatious social media action, @moXJO  points out.

I could point out literally dozens of cases straight off the top of my head but in respect to Joe's comments earlier, I will just leave that right out of this post.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Laws embed our rights.




No it's the other way around as the Bob Brown case shows.

But continue in your ignorance if you want.


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> No it's the other way around as the Bob Brown case shows.
> 
> But continue in your ignorance if you want.



You cannot show that to be true, yet have repeated it time and again.
Just as you remain confused about our court system's role in upholding the law.
The High Court inter alia upholds our Constitutional rights, ie. the principles and laws of our nation, and overrides inconsistent State laws, which is exactly what occurred in Bob Brown's case.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> The High Court inter alia upholds our Constitutional rights, ie. the principles and laws of our nation, and overrides inconsistent State laws, which is exactly what occurred in Bob Brown's case.




I see you are starting to cotton on. 

Well done, about time.


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I see you are starting to cotton on.
> 
> Well done, about time.



Yes, you got it back to front, and claim a victory from behind.
So where exactly are these *rights *which are determining our laws, which you say is the case?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Yes, you got it back to front, and claim a victory from behind.
> So where exactly are these *rights *which are determining our laws, which you say is the case?




Read the Bob Brown story again Rob, and you might understand.


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Read the Bob Brown story again Rob, and you might understand.



You are saying that rights are responsible for laws and cannot show it.
Bob's case demonstrates exactly how laws embed our rights, not the other way around.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> You are saying that rights are responsible for laws and cannot show it.
> Bob's case demonstrates exactly how laws embed our rights, not the other way around.




???


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> ???



Rights are conditioned by what is lawful.
There are things you can freely do and say in the privacy of your home that you cannot do in public or make public.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Rights are conditioned by what is lawful.




Wrong, wrong, wrong. When a law contradicts a right that is expressed or implied in the Constitution then that law can be overturned by the courts. 

I've provided you with an example of where that has happened. Are you just being stubborn or can you really not comprehend this ?

I'm not going to reply further, doing so may violate the etiquette of this forum.


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. When a law contradicts a right that is expressed or implied in the Constitution then that law can be overturned by the courts.
> 
> I've provided you with an example of where that has happened. Are you just being stubborn or can you really not comprehend this ?
> 
> I'm not going to reply further, doing so may violate the etiquette of this forum.



The Constitution is a statement of our *laws *and principles of government. 
Matters which are constitutional are lawful.
We are not like America.
We do not have a separate *Bill of Rights*.

*The Australian Constitution has properly been described as ‘the birth certificate of a nation’. It also provides the basic rules for the government of Australia. Indeed, the Constitution is the fundamental law of Australia binding everybody including the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliament of each State. Accordingly, even an Act passed by a Parliament is invalid if it is contrary to the Constitution.*​


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

rederob said:


> *Accordingly, even an Act passed by a Parliament is invalid if it is contrary to the Constitution.*




That's what I've been saying all along !


----------



## rederob (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> That's what I've been saying all along !



Seriously?
You have banged on about *rights*.
Our court system upholds laws (which incorporate rights) and you have repeatedly claimed the opposite.
Your example merely showed the court system in operation.


----------



## basilio (6 July 2020)

From the pen of the most viewed and arguably influential opinion writer in Australia. 
Freedom of Speech in its full glory.

 From Bolts blog
*Dan Andrews goes all China on Virus Towers*
We now know what it's like to live in a Chinese dictatorship. Premier Daniel Andrews has locked up 3000 residents in nine Melbourne public housing towers. And he's warned them : get tested or stay longer than five days in your arbitrary home imprisonment.

Indefinite imprisonment, for committing no crime.

Imprisonment sanctioned by no court.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

basilio said:


> From the pen of the most viewed and arguably influential opinion writer in Australia.
> Freedom of Speech in its full glory.
> 
> From Bolts blog
> ...




I fully agree with what Andrews has done. This is an EMERGENCY. No one should get out of those towers until they test negative. Better to inconvenience a few that infect many.

Not sure why this is in a "Freedon of Speech" thread.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I fully agree with what Andrews has done. This is an EMERGENCY. No one should get out of those towers until they test negative. Better to inconvenience a few that infect many.
> 
> Not sure why this is in a "Freedon of Speech" thread.



Probably didnt want to clutter the Trump thread.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I fully agree with what Andrews has done. This is an EMERGENCY. No one should get out of those towers until they test negative. Better to inconvenience a few that infect many.
> 
> Not sure why this is in a "Freedon of Speech" thread.



I think we should do this for every virus...


----------



## basilio (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I fully agree with what Andrews has done. This is an EMERGENCY. No one should get out of those towers until they test negative. Better to inconvenience a few that infect many.
> 
> Not sure why this is in a "Freedon of Speech" thread.




Indeed. And allowing one of the most influential conservative journalists to berate the government for taking a step to protect the community makes a point about Free Speech being well and truly free in Australia.

Then comes the question of how that free speech impacts on the rest of the community - particularly if enough people arc up and demand their right to move without restriction " because closing the Towers is just a commie plot"


----------



## Klogg (6 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Indeed. And allowing one of the most influential conservative journalists to berate the government for taking a step to protect the community makes a point about Free Speech being well and truly free in Australia.
> 
> Then comes the question of how that free speech impacts on the rest of the community - particularly if enough people arc up and demand their right to move without restriction " because closing the Towers is just a commie plot"




This is ludicrous. We've adopted this idea that coronavirus suppression is in everyones interest, so the government can just lock people down whenever they see fit.

We assume that death is the thing we wish to avoid most, but if economic armageddon ensues, that will prove a much worse outcome to the 99%+ who would have surived the pandemic anyway.


Closing the towers is not a commie plot, it's not right or left. I just view it as authoritarian and an intrusion of individual liberty. Go away, I want my freedom.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

Klogg said:


> This is ludicrous. We've adopted this idea that coronavirus suppression is in everyones interest, so the government can just lock people down whenever they see fit.
> 
> We assume that death is the thing we wish to avoid most, but if economic armageddon ensues, that will prove a much worse outcome to the 99%+ who would have surived the pandemic anyway.
> 
> ...




So you are a "let it rip" advocate ?

Thank God you are not in charge of the country.


----------



## Klogg (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are a "let it rip" advocate ?
> 
> Thank God you are not in charge of the country.



No, not 'let it rip'

Find those that are vulnerable, and protect them until a vaccine is available. The rest of the country can continue to live as they see fit.

Pretty much what Sweden is doing. They've not been perfect, but it's the most considered, balanced approach to date.


----------



## Klogg (6 July 2020)

Not to mention, not a single government has advised its citizens on how to strengthen your immune system. Nothing on exercise, eating well, getting enough sleep - as if it's all irrelevant.

Instead we assume the government has all the answers and the individual should just comply with the restrictions placed upon them.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 July 2020)

*




*
* Sweden *
*Coronavirus Cases:*
71,419
*Deaths:*
5,420
*Recovered:*
N/A
*Projections*
Active Cases
57,702
Currently Infected Patients
57,578 (*100*%)
in Mild Condition

124 (*0*%)
Serious or Critical

Sweden population 10.3 million.

Sweden's unemployment seems to be no better than ours despite all those deaths.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...te-climbs-to-7-9-amid-brewing-political-storm


----------



## Klogg (6 July 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Denmark locked down:





Norway locked down:





Sweden didn't really lock down:





Their GDP grew, whilst neighbouring economies tanked.

2% of GDP for Sweden is 11bn.

Sweden deaths per million: 537
Denmark deaths per million: 105
Norway deaths per million: 46

Lets pretend Sweden could have reduced their deaths per million by ~450, but GDP went down 2%. Given a population of 10.23m, that's 4,600 lives saved at the cost of 11bn krona.

Now consider the average life expectancy is 82.3 years (google).

Also consider the median age of death is > 80 years. But I'll be generous and use 80 years in my calculations:





(this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/)

At 2.3 years per person, that's 10,580 years of life saved, at a cost to GDP of 11bn krona.  That's a cost of over 1m krona per year of human life.

Does that not seem an extremely unreasonable price to pay, given it can spread again quite easily once you open, and you pay the same cost?


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2020)

I think it will be some time before the Sweden experiment will be able to be annualised.

A couple of things, how many other countries have a Swedish culture? who pays 50% tax rates etc for starters, they have a much higher cooperation rate than almost anyone what the Swedes accept and other counties are poles apart.  

I hope it works out for them but the recoveries in neighbouring countries seems to be happening unlike Sweden.


----------



## Klogg (6 July 2020)

Not


IFocus said:


> I think it will be some time before the Sweden experiment will be able to be annualised.
> 
> A couple of things, how many other countries have a Swedish culture? who pays 50% tax rates etc for starters, they have a much higher cooperation rate than almost anyone what the Swedes accept and other counties are poles apart.
> 
> I hope it works out for them but the recoveries in neighbouring countries seems to be happening unlike Sweden.



Not really. A vaccine will be delivered at best within a year.
That 2% differential will remain unless other economies completely remove lockdowns. Not to mention that -2% figure has only one of three months included in lockdown.
A 5% figure would be more accurate to be honest.

Offsetting that will be number of deaths of course. But the current rate (deaths/costs) seems disproportionately high wouldnt you say?

As for tax rates, they're neither here nor there. Overall economic activity has been impacted, and we're measuring total cost, not just government cost


----------



## moXJO (7 July 2020)

"Problematic books" huh.

That's where we are leading people now?
Ahh well get those bonfires ready and get your fascist on.


----------



## IFocus (7 July 2020)

Klogg said:


> Not
> 
> Not really. A vaccine will be delivered at best within a year.
> That 2% differential will remain unless other economies completely remove lockdowns. Not to mention that -2% figure has only one of three months included in lockdown.
> ...




A vaccine remains a risk its not a given and I take your point in regards to the gap between economy's but if Sweden's infection rate remains higher than others their boarders will be closed to the nations where the virus is very low that will impact. 

The tax rate was an example of their culture which doesn't exist else where. 

Still it will be some time before proper analysis will reveal what works best.


----------



## dutchie (23 July 2020)

High School Teacher in Michigan Fired for Saying 'Trump Is Our President' on Social Media

https://pjmedia.com/


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2020)

This is along the same lines of freedom of speach and a politically correct society we are developing and the underlying problem with a lot of today's issues IMO. 
It is an interesting article and more so because it said by Ita Buttrose.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...2-p55ekh.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true.
From the article:
_However, she said it was the makeup of the workforce that had most radically changed, particularly the demands of millennials.

"What does change is the expectations of staff, that's where the change occurs," Buttrose said. "The younger workers like more transparency."

Buttrose said this was in stark contrast to when she was a journalist, when she said not hearing from proprietors like Sir Frank Packer and bosses was a good thing because "no news means good news".

"But it seems to me that today's younger workers, they need much more reassurance and they need to be thanked, which is something many companies don't do.


"They're very keen on being thanked and they almost need hugging – that's before COVID of course, we can't hug anymore – but they almost need hugging.

"You have to understand that they seem to lack the resilience that I remember from my younger days," Buttrose, now 78, said.

She added that resilience seemed to be in "short supply" worldwide.

"Whether that's because of bad parenting, I don't know, and I don't want to go down that path and offend young parents but I am an older parent, and we older parents have very set views about resilience and, you know, I think it's something we need to foster in everybody from a very young age_."


----------



## SirRumpole (24 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> This is along the same lines of freedom of speach and a politically correct society we are developing and the underlying problem with a lot of today's issues IMO.
> It is an interesting article and more so because it said by Ita Buttrose.
> https://www.theage.com.au/national/...2-p55ekh.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true.
> From the article:
> ...




I think everyone needs to know what the boss thinks about how they are doing their jobs, good or bad.

I'm sure that progressive companies would have a regular evaluation, face to face between and employee and their supervisor and not just leave them in the dark.

But it will be interesting to see how many SJW's jump on Ita for being mean and nasty to a "vulnerable" section of our society.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> However, she said it was the makeup of the workforce that had most radically changed, particularly the demands of millennials.
> 
> "What does change is the expectations of staff, that's where the change occurs," Buttrose said. "The younger workers like more transparency."




It partly comes from the oldies too.

They're mostly the ones who many years ago decided that large organisations need formalised performance appraisals, effectively a forced chat between a worker and their immediate supervisor, and that casual feedback on an "as needed" basis wasn't sufficient.

If the boss is doing their job then any negative feedback required will already have been given such that the appraisal ends up as a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" praising session in practice. Unless the worker is truly terrible then the boss notes only good things about them, the worker writes something nice about their boss in return and it goes up to the next level of management who signs it. 

Plenty of large organisations both private and government have some version of that system.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2020)

I found her comments on the fact they also most need hugging interesting.
My oldest son is an underground electrical foreman, I always thought he is pretty full on and sets the bar pretty high.
So when he told me, the first thing he has to tell new sparkies is, this is a 24-7 operation the mine keeps moving.
That means we have to keep the communications and power up to them, therefore night shifts are the same as day shifts and secondly I'm not your Dad.
After reading Ita's comments maybe he isn't so hard ar$ed.


----------



## macca (24 July 2020)

It goes right back to their childhood and schooling.

Some parents let their kids run riot and then blow up if the kid gets hurt

For years now teachers have not corrected kids spelling, this teaches them that near enough is good enough

In the real world that is definitely dangerous and people die because of that attitude.

Blokes walking around on multi story constructions, safety harness supplied by the boss is worn but not hooked on to anything, useless!


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> It partly comes from the oldies too.
> 
> They're mostly the ones who many years ago decided that large organisations need formalised performance appraisals, effectively a forced chat between a worker and their immediate supervisor, and that casual feedback on an "as needed" basis wasn't sufficient.
> 
> ...



If the right people are in the right position, the workplace hums along, one cog out of place at any level can cause huge loss of productivity and harmony, well that's what I found over my working career.


----------



## macca (24 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> If the right people are in the right position, the workplace hums along, one cog out of place at any level can cause huge loss of productivity and harmony, well that's what I found over my working career.




One bad apple will turn the whole box, the same applies to toxic employees.

One bad employee who bludges, snipes, sucks up to weak bosses or is not safety conscious can bring the whole place down.

Usually, the worst ones know all the rules, how to stretch them and have the union delegate on speed dial


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2020)

macca said:


> One bad apple will turn the whole box, the same applies to toxic employees.
> 
> One bad employee who bludges, snipes, sucks up to weak bosses or is not safety conscious can bring the whole place down.
> 
> Usually, the worst ones know all the rules, how to stretch them and have the union delegate on speed dial



I worked under a middle manager, who tried to make every safety meeting or safety issue into a stop work meeting, just a nasty piece of work.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I worked under a middle manager, who tried to make every safety meeting or safety issue into a stop work meeting, just a nasty piece of work.




The other type to avoid are those who are self-proclaimed "experts" at just about everything but who in practice know nothing much about anything.

Acknowledged ignorance beats falsely claimed competence any day.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> The other type to avoid are those who are self-proclaimed "experts" at just about everything but who in practice know nothing much about anything.
> 
> Acknowledged ignorance beats falsely claimed competence any day.



Yes everyone reaches their level of competence.
The problem is they then normaly put in for a promotion.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 July 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Yes everyone reaches their level of competence.
> The problem is they then normaly put in for a promotion.



The individual I had in mind when making that comment thankfully has nothing to do with the energy industry by the way.

Thankfully.


----------



## basilio (26 July 2020)

*How the President of Freeest Country in the World defends Free Speech.*
How many people has he tried to sue to shut them up ?

*Trump's free-speech legal folly has merely emboldened his critics
Lloyd Green*
The president remains as keen to sue as ever – but his attempts to intimidate his targets have proved a spectacular flop

Donald Trump always had a problem with free speech. Back in the day, he sued reporter Tim O’Brien and the New York Times for allegedly underestimating his wealth. Trump claimed that he was worth billions, but O’Brien pegged the number at no more than $250m, not shoddy but also not jaw-dropping. In the end, New Jersey’s courts tossed Trump’s libel claim, but only after the tabloid star acknowledged that his personal balance sheet was influenced by his own guesstimates.

....Suffice to say, when it comes to free speech, Trump has been inconsistent. In a recent interview with CBS, Trump made clear that the first amendment protects the display of the Confederate battle flag. He explained: *“My attitude is freedom of speech. Very strong views on the Confederate flag. With me, it’s freedom of speech. Very simple. Like it, don’t like it, it’s freedom of speech.”*

But with this president few things are ever that simple. And even fewer are true.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/24/trump-free-speech-michael-cohen


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2020)

All this TDS is getting boring!

Jesus get a life you guys, smell the roses, watch the pretty girls walk by!


----------



## qldfrog (26 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> All this TDS is getting boring!
> 
> Jesus get a life you guys, smell the roses, watch the pretty girls walk by!



Do not use 'Jesus', another symbol of whit male persecution
Some people here are indeed in a serious mental state.not sure how to help them.
No, Trump is not under your bed, and stop TV, get a life...


----------



## basilio (26 July 2020)

Wayne, QFrog.  What an absolute and total joke..
Here we are on a Thread called  (wait for it... Drum Rolls...) 

............ *The West has lost its Freedom of Speech*

Got it ? Get it ? Good.  Keep following the bouncing ball

 It just happens that  the bastion of the West,   that absolute proponent of Free Speech.  (Note attached quotes regarding the  Freedom of Speech around flying the Confederate Flag ) just happens to have the longest, sorriest,  most litigious history of attempting to close down anyones  "Freedom of Speech"
*when he is the target of their  supposed Freedom.
*
For the record consider

1) The suing of Tim O'brien for underestimating his wealth.  (Lost that one)

2) Attempting to stop his *ex consigliere Michael Cohen* from writing his book on the Don by throwing him back in jail. (Lost that one )

3) Trying to stop *John Bolton* from spilling the beans on Trumps political madness (Lost that one)

4)Trying to stop his niece* Mary Trump * from exposing what a  lying, sociopathic piece of xshite Donald has  alway been . (Court threw that one out too!!)

5) Trying to block Michael Wolff from releasing his book on the Trump maladministration. That didn't fly.

I'm positive there are a heap of other examples of the Don's determination to ensure Freedom of Speech is not meant for anyone he doesn't think should have it - particularly if it uncovers anything juicy from his grotty past.


----------



## rederob (26 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Wayne, QFrog.  What an absolute and total joke..
> Here we are on a Thread called  (wait for it... Drum Rolls...)
> 
> ............ *The West has lost its Freedom of Speech*
> ...



Wikileaks anyone?


----------



## explod (26 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Wikileaks anyone?



Yes, locked up for revealing the truth and virtually under torture as we write.

There is no freedom of speech


----------



## qldfrog (26 July 2020)

Did you know that a reference to the "founding fathers" in an essaya in a  qld university is noted as patriarchal and recommended to be changed by the lecturer.
learnt that this week from my son student there
As i do not want to risk being in front of court for naming the uni or have @Joe Blow  in trouble, let's just say this uni has a very strong affinity with the CCP lately
Joe: if you think this can give you trouble, just delete
Have all a great week in the latest episode of 
The island


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Wikileaks anyone?



Yes we know that if anyone p1sses off the super elite, or is seen to compromise national security, you're in deep doo-doo. It always has been that way, even with the 2nd amendment in the US.

However we are speaking about the general speech of we plebeians.

It is true that in commonwealth countries, the egregious truth is that we have no explicit constitutional right to free speech; it is rather implied and subject to interpretation.

The US has the second amendment which affords constitutional rights.

For us, this is why we have cause for concern, as even basic "rights" are under threat.

In the UK, the Met has a 900 strong squad searching for mean tweets, which may be recorded as non criminal incidences of "hate", completely at the discretion of the Old Bill, with no easy recourse or judicial oversight. Often these are very innocuous.

Oz is going the same way.


----------



## basilio (26 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Yes we know that if anyone p1sses off the super elite, or is seen to compromise national security, you're in deep doo-doo. It always has been that way, even with the 2nd amendment in the US.
> 
> However we are speaking about the general speech of we plebeians.
> 
> ...




Just another correction..
The UK  Met * does not have *900 people searching for mean tweets.
That is just another Wayne "wind it up special" . Where did it come from ? Who is trying to wind us up ?  Tommy where are you..

The UK Met does have 900 officers who  are..
_900 specialist hate crime investigators working in our dedicated Community Safety and Safeguarding Units across London. 

These officers investigate and manage specific crimes, such as domestic abuse, hate crime and honour based abuse, which often require specialist knowledge and understanding. In partnership with external agencies, we’re supporting the needs of victims, their families and their communities to make them safer and prevent re-victimisation.
_
It's not hard to get  more accurate information.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/how-to-report-hate-crime/


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Just another correction..
> The UK  Met * does not have *900 people searching for mean tweets.
> That is just another Wayne "wind it up special" . Where did it come from ? Who is trying to wind us up ?  Tommy where are you..
> 
> ...



And the low hanging fruit is Twitter.

The record is replete with incidences of The Old Bill hassling ordinary folks having a say.

There is the euphemism, then there is the reality.


----------



## rederob (26 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> Yes we know that if anyone p1sses off the super elite, or is seen to compromise national security, you're in deep doo-doo. It always has been that way, even with the 2nd amendment in the US.



 Australia has suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in response to fears over a new national security law imposed by China, yet has done nothing to prevent an Australian citizen being extradited to the USA.  Assange has committed no crime in the nation that holds him in jail except for protecting himself from extradition to the USA from a third country, then based on spurious charges.  Wikileaks exemplified the concept of free speech and has never been shown to have breached national security, unless you abide by a government lying to the public about its actions.


----------



## basilio (26 July 2020)

wayneL said:


> And the low hanging fruit is Twitter.
> 
> The record is replete with incidences of The Old Bill hassling ordinary folks having a say.
> 
> There is the euphemism, then there is the reality.




Really Wayne ? Some of  Tommys Bovver Boys been banged up for a bit of "mucking around" ? Or do they just want to make some noise about losing their "God Given Right to Say Whatever They xloody Well Want To ?"

What doesn't change is your capacity to take a very wide ranging police responsibility on dealing with hate crimes and pretending they are all out there "looking for mean tweets".


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2020)

Don't be juvenile bas.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2020)

rederob said:


> Australia has suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in response to fears over a new national security law imposed by China, yet has done nothing to prevent an Australian citizen being extradited to the USA.  Assange has committed no crime in the nation that holds him in jail except for protecting himself from extradition to the USA from a third country, then based on spurious charges.  Wikileaks exemplified the concept of free speech and has never been shown to have breached national security, unless you abide by a government lying to the public about its actions.



I can't disagree at all.... and that is concerning.

ACP has been noting such other things of late.


----------



## basilio (27 July 2020)

basilio said:


> Just another correction..
> The UK  Met * does not have *900 people searching for mean tweets.
> That is just another Wayne "wind it up special" . Where did it come from ? Who is trying to wind us up ?  Tommy where are you..
> 
> ...




It  looks as if the Met really does need more officers taking a look at "mean tweets".

Seems as if the  people exercising their right to "free hate"  on Twatter is going into overdrive. 
*Government must ramp up efforts to counter online hate, Labour says*
Party cites antisemitic comments made by Wiley as home secretary tells Twitter and Instagram to act faster

The series of anti-Jewish comments made online by the musician was one of a number of incidents cited by Labour, as well as the torrent of abuse faced by the former shadow home secretary Diane Abbott and racist posts about the footballers Wilfried Zaha and David McGoldrick.

*Priti Patel (current Home Secretary)  said posts from Wiley were “abhorrent” and said she had asked Twitter and Instagram why they had been allowed to remain up for almost 12 hours. “Social media companies must act much faster to remove such appalling hatred from their platforms,”* she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-antisemitic-comments-wiley-twitter-instagram


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2020)

They should be pulling up the likes of Owen and Ash "I'm literally a communist" Sarkar, and the rest of Momentum et al, too.


----------



## RIPONMIA (29 July 2020)

The Chinese embassy has condemned Australia's decision to extend the visas of some Hong Kongers in response to China's crackdown on personal freedoms, saying it is a "gross interference" in the country's internal affairs.I can't disagree at all.... and that is concerning.


----------



## sptrawler (29 July 2020)

RIPONMIA said:


> The Chinese embassy has condemned Australia's decision to extend the visas of some Hong Kongers in response to China's crackdown on personal freedoms, saying it is a "gross interference" in the country's internal affairs.I can't disagree at all.... and that is concerning.



So you think people from Hong Kong, shouldn't be allowed to stay in Australia, if they so wish?
They may well be upstanding people, who have decided they want to settle in Australia, as long as they pass the immigration requirements what is the problem with it?
China could quite easily respond, by saying any Australian who wants to settle in China, can do so. Would that be "gross interference" in Australia's internal affairs?


----------



## dutchie (5 August 2020)

New Google Technology Autocorrects Users' Thoughts

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—At a special press conference held at the technology giant’s sprawling campus Tuesday, Google engineers revealed exciting new technology that autocorrects any errant thoughts its users are having, replacing them with positions approved by the company.


Utilizing advanced retinal scan and proprietary telepathic scanning technology, the new automatic thought correction algorithm is now live for users of Google’s search engine, Android operating system, Chrome OS, and the hundreds of other apps and services the company provides.

“Let’s say you start thinking there may be some kind of inherent biological difference between men and women,” Google employee Ryan Vo said in a live demo of the new tech. “Immediately, the thought suggestion program in any nearby Google device, app, or service will scrub the idea of inherent gender differences and replace them with the sure knowledge that there are at least three hundred different genders in existence, and always has been.”

https://babylonbee.com/news


----------



## DB008 (9 August 2020)

*NASA mocked for discarding ‘Eskimo Nebula,’ ‘Siamese Twins Galaxy’ as ‘actively harmful’ terms*​The Countrywide Aeronautics and House Administration (NASA) has occur under fire for taking element in ongoing initiatives to rid the federal authorities and other entities of “systemic discrimination and inequality.”

The agency introduced on Wednesday that it would prevent using the conditions “Eskimo Nebula”  and “Siamese Twins Galaxy”. Instead, the agency will refer to the celestial phenomena by their Worldwide Astronomical Union designations — NGC 2392, NGC 4567, and NGC 4568.

“‘Eskimo’ is extensively considered as a colonial expression with a racist history, imposed on the indigenous individuals of Arctic areas,” NASA said in a statement. “Most formal paperwork have moved absent from its use.”

The changes are part of a broader “determination to range, equity, and inclusion.

As the scientific community works to determine and handle systemic discrimination and inequality in all areas of the field, it has come to be apparent that particular cosmic nicknames are not only insensitive, but can be actively damaging,” the statement continued. “NASA is examining its use of unofficial terminology for cosmic objects as aspect of its commitment to variety, fairness, and inclusion.”

Lots of Twitter end users ridiculed the change. Writer Christina Hoff Sommers tweeted: “Pricey NASA: Will you also tackle the next hurtful and insensitive terms:  Big Bang Theory, Uranus, black holes, dwarf stars, and dark make a difference.”

“Who runs @NASA that they would let this governing administration company interact if [sic] leftist race baiting?” Judicial Check out President Tom Fitton stated.​

https://www.haveeru.com.mv/nasa-moc...amese-twins-galaxy-as-actively-harmful-terms/

.​


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2020)

Peter Ridd (the guy that got fired for saying scientists were using emotion not logic/ barrier reef) has a fund raiser going. 
He has also trashed the peer review system which I also think is a joke and was calling for a governing body to qualify the work properly.




https://au.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2020)

moXJO said:


> Peter Ridd (the guy that got fired for saying scientists were using emotion not logic/ barrier reef) has a fund raiser going.
> He has also trashed the peer review system which I also think is a joke and was calling for a governing body to qualify the work properly.
> 
> 
> ...



I've listened to a few interviews of him. Really interesting and also alarming about the state of science in a few fields I can think of.


----------



## moXJO (19 August 2020)

So this happened:



Then this happened:


----------



## IFocus (19 August 2020)

moXJO said:


> So this happened:
> 
> 
> 
> Then this happened:





Maybe hedging their bets thinking Biden will get up such is US politics / business.


----------



## dutchie (27 August 2020)

Further resistance to the bullsh#t woke.

It's an open letter to University staff etc. 
How many will bother to read it (it is quite lengthy)
How many will sign it?




G[URL='https://twitter.com/primalpoly']eoffrey Miller @primalpoly [/URL]

Important: Are you an American academic opposed to political intolerance, ideological conformity, cancel culture, speech codes, & mandatory 'diversity statements'? We have an open letter we hope you'll read & sign: http://rb.gy/dcql54  Please retweet widely!


----------



## basilio (3 September 2020)

Freedom Speech .. For who ? For what ?


----------



## moXJO (3 September 2020)

basilio said:


> Freedom Speech .. For who ? For what ?




This is comedy right. Possibly the most delusional video yet. Here's some counter. Real world counter.



Raise that hand.



Smash opposing opinions at their political meetings.





> *I went to a Trump rally in my hijab. His supporters aren't just racist caricatures*



https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ijab-supporters-arent-just-racist-caricatures
And didn't get beat up.

Oh unless it was by the anti trumpers outside.



> Brandon Tatum, an officer in the Tucson Police Department, went to a Trump rally on Saturday as a civilian to see what was going on. In a subsequent video, he said he thought there was going to be “a full-fledged riot” at the event — but not because of Trump’s supporters.
> 
> The protesters were the problem, Tatum said.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-the-most-hateful-evil-people-ive-ever-seen/
And its a black guy.


And I could go on, but can't be bothered. I'm going to go eat a sandwich or something.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2020)

It's a mistake to assume that a group representing a cause actually does represent that cause. All too often, the cause is merely a convenient means by which the group is legitimised.

That goes for everything. Sometimes things are legit, sometimes they're not.

What I will say though is that those who are effective at getting things done generally don't draw attention to themselves. Governments are on the receiving end of plenty of lobbying from people whose names you wouldn't recognise and who you'd have no idea who they are even if they were standing right next to you. 

Those people are, in general, far more effective than those making a noise. Making a fuss is a tool used only as a last ditch effort when all else has failed, by amateurs who've no idea how to win, or if actually succeeding isn't the real objective.


----------



## qldfrog (5 September 2021)

After the massacre this week in nz,
We have the usul do not blame a country (Sri Lanka)
.i agree..or a religion..well you know my position
i invite you to read the excuse from the family of the murderer
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...-deport-extremist-samsudeen-years-2021-09-04/
So basically he was looking for justice and NZ is to be blamed.....


----------



## qldfrog (5 September 2021)

qldfrog said:


> After the massacre this week in nz,
> We have the usul do not blame a country (Sri Lanka)
> .i agree..or a religion..well you know my position
> i invite you to read the excuse from the family of the murderer
> ...



Wiuld be i teresting to know if that family is still in Sri Lanka as well and who is next on their slashing throat list


----------



## moXJO (5 September 2021)

Well at least they shot him dead as it was costing for the 24/7 surveillance.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 September 2021)

qldfrog said:


> Wiuld be i teresting to know if that family is still in Sri Lanka as well and who is next on their slashing throat list




Would be interesting if NZ knew of his philosophy before he went there, if so why did they let him in ?


----------



## qldfrog (6 September 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Would be interesting if NZ knew of his philosophy before he went there, if so why did they let him in ?



Well, in short, his philosophy is a book ,and it is fashionable to pretend it is not.
You can read a book and not follow it,we all agree..yet we can not pretend to ignore it.


----------



## moXJO (7 September 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Would be interesting if NZ knew of his philosophy before he went there, if so why did they let him in ?



New Zealand is honestly a weird mix.
We just assume if it comes to the worst that we can handle it one way or the other.

I do think they just decided to shoot the guy after reading witness accounts. No warning just blam with a serving of 9mm justice.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2021)

Really interesting, a reporter who did an article on Pauline Hanson's personal life, had to cancel it.  Nothing like being heard is there. 🤣
The only people who can now be heard, are those that are allowed to be heard, this is really getting crazy.
I guess, unless you are in step with the ranters and chanters, even a casual interview isn't allowed.
Welcome to the new world.








						Jessica Rowe pulls podcast interview with Pauline Hanson after backlash
					

The interview, which focused on Hanson’s life away from politics, drew widespread criticism on social media.




					www.theage.com.au
				



From the article:
Journalist and TV presenter Jessica Rowe has deleted a podcast she recorded with Pauline Hanson after it sparked widespread criticism on social media.

Promoting the episode on Twitter on Wednesday, the former _Studio 10_ host had said the interview with Hanson - from her _The Jess Rowe Big Talk Show_ podcast - “isn’t about politics” but instead focused on “love, raising kids, and why [Hanson] keeps going”.
But it quickly triggered a backlash online, with many prominent commentators - including Australian of the Year Grace Tame - criticising Rowe for platforming the One Nation leader.
“This is how discrimination and hate is subtly enabled and normalised,” Tame wrote on Twitter. “Pauline doesn’t need help to be heard, but those whose oppression she’s both driven and reinforced do.”

On Thursday, Rowe took to Instagram to explain that she had listened to the criticisms and asked her podcast publisher Listnr to “take down the Pauline Hanson episode”.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Really interesting, a reporter who did an article on Pauline Hanson's personal life, had to cancel it.  Nothing like being heard is there. 🤣
> The only people who can now be heard, are those that are allowed to be heard, this is really getting crazy.
> I guess, unless you are in step with the ranters and chanters, even a casual interview isn't allowed.
> Welcome to the new world.
> ...



Jess *nearly had some journalistic cojones, but exposed her leftist yellow streak at the last minute.

Nearly ballsy, but cowardly in the end.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2021)

wayneL said:


> Jess *nearly had some journalistic cojones, but exposed her leftist yellow streak at the last minute.
> 
> Nearly ballsy, but cowardly in the end.



It is starting to get somewhat like vocal minority censorship, if people can't hear both sides of an issue, they can't make valid analysis.
The way things are going the country is going to be driven by ideological dreams, rather than realistic progressive technological and economical reasoning.
I actually don't have a problem with it, at my age it will have minimal effect on me and my kids and grandkids will adapt, humans do.
But whether it is a better life, only time will tell.


----------



## rederob (30 September 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Really interesting, a reporter who did an article on Pauline Hanson's personal life, had to cancel it.  Nothing like being heard is there. 🤣
> The only people who can now be heard, are those that are allowed to be heard, this is really getting crazy.
> I guess, unless you are in step with the ranters and chanters, even a casual interview isn't allowed.
> Welcome to the new world.
> ...



Rowe *chose *to pull the podcast.
Idiots like Hanson get ample media attention and her spreading more vitriol at every opportunity does not bode well for an accepting society.
Rowe did the intelligent thing, and listened to people with more sense.
The ranters and chanters you talk about are in fact the Hanson's of the world, so you seem to have created your own storm in a tea cup.


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2021)

rederob said:


> Rowe *chose *to pull the podcast.



After the* backlash*, from the opposite end of the spectrum.
No storm in a teacup, it's par for course these days.


----------



## moXJO (30 September 2021)

First off-  how many people are listening to a Rowe podcast?

Secondly, did we expect anything different from the glitterati.


----------



## rederob (1 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> After the* backlash*, from the opposite end of the spectrum.
> No storm in a teacup, it's par for course these days.



You fail to see the irony in your post!
People are free to give their opinions on what others say - your so called *backlash*.
Rowe, on hearing some sound opinions, realised offering even more oxygen to a fruitcake was not a smart move so chose to exercise her prerogative and withdraw the podcast.  
Hanson is free to stand on a street corner and repeat whatever she said to Rowe, but she has no say in what Rowe chooses to air, or remove.
Getting your knockers in a knit about a matter that was never about free speech was more like a hurricane in a thimble.


----------



## sptrawler (1 October 2021)

The article apparently was a human interest story, but obviously only those which interest a certain sector, can be allowed through.
As you say those who don't fit the loony left bill, can go and stand on a street corner. Lol
A bit like a lot of posters probably think you and I are fruitloops, but they don't ask Joe to take us down, they can just ignore.
That seems a lot better than radical censorship, by the self obsessed fighters for their right to shut people up. Lol
In reality IMO they are no better than Hanson, just the other end of the spectrum.


----------



## rederob (1 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The article apparently was a human interest story, but obviously only those which interest a certain sector, can be allowed through.
> As you say those who don't fit the loony left bill, can go and stand on a street corner. Lol



You just don't get it, especially the irony!
Hanson and anyone else who wants to pour their heart out on a street corner is *free *to do so.   
Who chooses to "air" what anyone says is *not* about "free speech".
Moreover, those choosing to air anything often act wisely in withdrawing material they consider inappropriate.  Lots of media outlets are now withdrawing anti-vaxxer material, and we all know about what happened with Trump.
Rowe could have done nothing if she thought the podcast to be in keeping with her intentions, but clearly she has a functioning brain, unlike Hanson!


----------



## sptrawler (1 October 2021)

rederob said:


> You just don't get it, especially the irony!
> Hanson and anyone else who wants to pour their heart out on a street corner is *free *to do so.
> Who chooses to "air" what anyone says is *not* about "free speech".
> Moreover, those choosing to air anything often act wisely in withdrawing material they consider inappropriate.  Lots of media outlets are now withdrawing anti-vaxxer material, and we all know about what happened with Trump.
> Rowe could have done nothing if she thought the podcast to be in keeping with her intentions, but clearly she has a functioning brain, unlike Hanson!



That's the whole issue, which as usual you fail to grasp, the issue is who considers it inappropriate.
Rowe felt it was a reasonable human interest story, therefore she spent her time and effort and Hanson's time and effort, to write an article and post it on her site.
A small group of self opinionated, self righteous muppets, decide that in their opinion Hanson shouldn't be given a stage.
So they go about applying public pressure to close that avenue for Hanson, as you would do, by saying she should only be allowed a stage on a street corner, because you don't agree with her beliefs.
But she is an elected public figure, therefore she represents the beliefs of those people who elected her, you or the others don't have the right to dictate where or how she can address the concerns of those who legally elected her.
The same as I have no right to demand Keating isn't given airplay, just because he isn't my cup of tea.
When the loony left has shut down all who speak up against them, there will be an opposite and equal reaction, by the sector that feels disenfranchised.
Or as someone once said.
"Idiots like Hanson get ample media attention and her spreading more vitriol at every opportunity does not bode well for an accepting society".

Accepting society, what a nice phrase, when we are an accepting society, we accept other people have different views. 

The loony left give lip service to all these catchy words, like inclusive, accepting etc, when in fact they are just as spiteful and nasty as the loony right IMO. 
Extremism is extremism, whichever end of the spectrum it is on.


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2021)

The only irony here is the extreme leftists here nitpicking minor points and failing to see the trajectory.


----------



## rederob (1 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> That's the whole issue, which as usual you fail to grasp, the issue is who considers it inappropriate.
> Rowe felt it was a reasonable human interest story, therefore she spent her time and effort and Hanson's time and effort, to write an article and post it on her site.
> A small group of self opinionated, self righteous muppets, decide that in their opinion Hanson shouldn't be given a stage.
> So they go about applying public pressure to close that avenue for Hanson, as you would do, by saying she should only be allowed a stage on a street corner, because you don't agree with her beliefs.
> ...



This is supposed to be about "free speech".
If you are concerned about what is aired using media then take those concerns elsewhere.
As I said, you just don't get it.


----------



## sptrawler (1 October 2021)

rederob said:


> This is supposed to be about "free speech".
> *If you are concerned about what is aired using media then take those concerns elsewhere.
> As I said, you just don't get it.*



"Free speech" isn't one dimensional, even though some sectors would like it to be, the ability to have your say freely and openly without censorship from pressure groups, is exactly what "free speech" is about.

I haven't told you what to do, but as per usual, you have no qualms trying to impose your will on me, where's the acceptance and inclusiveness Rob? 🤣


----------



## IFocus (1 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> "Free speech" isn't one dimensional, even though some sectors would like it to be, the ability to have your say freely and openly without censorship from pressure groups, is exactly what "free speech" is about.
> 
> I haven't told you what to do, but as per usual, you have no qualms trying to impose your will on me, where's the acceptance and inclusiveness Rob? 🤣





Common SP pick some one else for your target Hanson was the worst kind of politician a real abomination.

Ran the dog whistle race / culture war, white victim card all the way to get a headline really disgusting IMHO.

Totally played divisive politics appealing to the dark side of human nature and brought SFA to Federal Parliament while gaming money out of the political party funding mechanisms.

The issue as Rob says has nothing to do with freedom of speech everyone gets to have an opinion including Rowe, I would image it was commercial / sponsorship  interests the caused the withdrawal.


----------



## IFocus (1 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> First off-  how many people are listening to a Rowe podcast?




Haha yeah exactly


----------



## sptrawler (1 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> Common SP pick some one else for your target Hanson was the worst kind of politician a real abomination.
> 
> Ran the dog whistle race / culture war, white victim card all the way to get a headline really disgusting IMHO.
> 
> ...



Come on IFocus, Rob doesn't need a hand, bit of left wing tag teaming going on eh. 

Whether Hanson is the biggest turd or not isn't the issue, she still represents people and the issue is as per the thread heading, "the West has lost its freedom of speech".
That is becoming more and more obvious with the cancel culture, as with Rob, just because you guys say it isn't so doesn't exactly make it accurate.
The centre group, who I class myself as a member of, can see the ebbs and flows of the narrative because we actually don't give a rats one way or the other. 🤣
The problem is that extremists of either left or right, who try to curb people having a say, just because they don't agree with their point of view is wrong.
It has happened throughout history and it is repeating as we speak.
The left say they are accepting of everyone, tolerant and inclusive of everyone, when they really are the opposite IMO.
A bit like religion, the church said they were there for everyone and they were a refuge for the helpless, well we know how that worked out.


----------



## rederob (1 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> "Free speech" isn't one dimensional, even though some sectors would like it to be, the ability to have your say freely and openly without censorship from pressure groups, is exactly what "free speech" is about.
> 
> I haven't told you what to do, but as per usual, you have no qualms trying to impose your will on me, where's the acceptance and inclusiveness Rob? 🤣



You still don't get it!
Nothing stops *YOU or anyone else *going out into a public place and saying what you want.  That's *free speech*.
Clearly, there are some things best *not *said unless you want to leave yourself open to litigation - there are well established laws that most people would be aware of and these constrain us.
However, try to get your opinions etc. aired in a media platform that you have no control over (and cannot "join") and see how you go.  Even here at ASF @Joe Blow can always delete anything he does not like should he so choose, aside from deleting posts contravening his rules.  Such deletions have zip to do with free speech.


----------



## sptrawler (1 October 2021)

rederob said:


> However, try to get your opinions etc. aired in a media platform that you have no control over (and cannot "join") and see how you go.  Even here at ASF @Joe Blow can always delete anything he does not like should he so choose, aside from deleting posts contravening his rules.  Such deletions have zip to do with free speech.



Rowe approached Hanson, for an interview, then Rowe published said interview, then left wing loonies went viral so Rowe removed said content.
We aren't talking letter of the law here Rob, we are talking perceptions and as you say an accepting society.
As I said the left aren't accepting and inclusive and they do stymie free speech, if the speech is something they don't agree with.

I think I'm middle of the road, accepting and inclusive, I've been a member of ASF for over 10 years and never been on an ignore, so obviously I listen and debate in a reasonable manner.
Yet you say quote:
If you are concerned about what is aired using media then take those concerns elsewhere.
How's that not passive aggressive, it's definitely not an accepting attitude, that we are trying to nurture in our society. 

As I sai, I've been on the forum for over 10 years and not been on anyone's ignore list, that's because I know what being accepting and inclusive is.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> Ran the dog whistle race / culture war, white victim card all the way to get a headline really disgusting IMHO.



Undoubtedly true but to be balanced there are people right across the political spectrum who'll use whatever argument happens to suit their objective at the time.

There's plenty who'll grab the "race" card if it suits them either directly or in thinly veiled terms such as highlighting that something is less than 100% Australian owned. That's an argument of convenience when the real issue they're on about has nothing to do with ownership and is something completely unrelated.

I'm no fan of Hanson but she's certainly not the only one to do it.


----------



## rederob (2 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Rowe approached Hanson, for an interview, then Rowe published said interview, then left wing loonies went viral so Rowe removed said content.
> We aren't talking letter of the law here Rob, we are talking perceptions and as you say an accepting society.
> As I said the left aren't accepting and inclusive and they do stymie free speech, if the speech is something they don't agree with.
> 
> ...



You have not made a single point about *free speech*.
*The power over what is aired or published is not a condition of free speech.*
You continue to be confused by the difference and resort to trying to make this personal.


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2021)

You are applying a legal definition to free speech, whereas I'm apply the conceptual definition, of course there are legal limits as to what can be said.

If those limits are contravened, then the person faces penalties, but what we have now is a sector of the population dictating what is socially acceptable and what isn't.
If you can't see that is happening in Western society, you aren't keeping abreast of  of social news, it is called the cancel culture and is being driven by a certain sector.

From memory Jessica Rowe was attacked on social media a few years back, which resulted in her suffering financial a psychological problems, so the fear of the trolling could well have contributed to her removing the Hanson article.
So IMO it is an example of where the ability for people to freely express their opinion, has been stymied by the threat of social victimisation, you may not see it that way which is fine.
But I think it is just another example of how the West is losing its freedom of speech.
So as usual, we have to agree to disagree on yet another subject, so be it.


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2021)

rederob said:


> You have not made a single point about *free speech*.
> *The power over what is aired or published is not a condition of free speech.*
> You continue to be confused by the difference and resort to trying to make this personal.



With regard making it personal, you are the one that keeps saying "I don't get it", because I don't capitulate to your one dimensional argument, yet you don't accept there are legal Freedoms  and social freedoms.
If standing up for my beliefs in a constructive and defensive manner, is making it personal, what is your constant barrage of of questioning my cognitive faculties?
Oh my apologies, I forgot, it's o.k for the left to say WTF they like, whereas if I say something it's a personal attack .


----------



## The Triangle (2 October 2021)

Being a gutless coward has nothing to do with free speech.

Nothing stopped Jessica Rowe from publishing her interview other then her own pathetic cowardice.

I would not be surprised if this is a manufactured controversy to boost her profile.


----------



## IFocus (2 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> You are applying a legal definition to free speech, whereas I'm apply the conceptual definition





So its a vibe sort of thing then, come on SP  let go of that straw


----------



## IFocus (2 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Undoubtedly true but to be balanced there are people right across the political spectrum who'll use whatever argument happens to suit their objective at the time.
> 
> There's plenty who'll grab the "race" card if it suits them either directly or in thinly veiled terms such as highlighting that something is less than 100% Australian owned. That's an argument of convenience when the real issue they're on about has nothing to do with ownership and is something completely unrelated.
> 
> I'm no fan of Hanson but she's certainly not the only one to do it.





Agree to an extent but few have been as divisive and deliberate in attacking, marginalising minorities for political gain as Hanson which is very un-Australian IMHO.


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> Agree to an extent but few have been as divisive and deliberate in* attacking, marginalising minorities* for political gain as Hanson which is very un-Australian IMHO.



She still receives votes and still represents a section of the community, or are you saying it is o.k to marginalise that sector of the community, which you don't agree with and you deem as un Australian? 
A vibe sort of un Australian thing is it, or just your take on un Australian??

IMHO what is un Australian, is not letting people have their say, that's what contributes to marginalising people.
If people say their piece and it doesn't make sense, the general public will ignore it, not letting them say their piece escalates the problem and also treats the general publics intelligence with contempt.

Oh come on IFocus let go of the straw. 🤣


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> So its a vibe sort of thing then, come on SP  let go of that straw



No IFocus it is this sort of thing, just for your personal growth. 

*Australia has 5 fundamental freedoms – freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, and movement.*

Freedom of speech:
_Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person’s good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others._


*The guts of the the discussion is,  "the intention of the topic is constructive and not intended to do harm":*

_The Jess Rowe Big Talk Show podcast - “isn’t about politics” but instead focused on “love, raising kids, and why [Hanson] keeps going”_.

*To which Rob replied*:
_Idiots like Hanson get ample media attention and her spreading more vitriol at every opportunity does not bode well for an accepting society.
Rowe did the intelligent thing, and listened to people with more sense_.


To me that is a bigot, bagging a bigot, but hey everyone is allowed their opinion, aren't they?🤣





__





						Right to freedom of opinion and expression
					

The following guidance is designed to assist Commonwealth public officials involved in developing legislation, policy or programs.  They have not been prepared for the purposes of informing administrative decision-making.




					www.ag.gov.au


----------



## IFocus (3 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> She still receives votes and still represents a section of the community, or are you saying it is o.k to marginalise that sector of the community, which you don't agree with and you deem as un Australian?
> A vibe sort of un Australian thing is it, or just your take on un Australian??
> 
> IMHO what is un Australian, is not letting people have their say, that's what contributes to marginalising people.
> ...





If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.


----------



## moXJO (3 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.



I thought the "Australian ethos" was to lick authorities boot, dob one another in and enjoy an overbearing police state.


----------



## IFocus (3 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> I thought the "Australian ethos" was to lick authorities boot, dob one another in and enjoy an overbearing police state.





That's an east coast ethos, boom boom


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> That's an east coast ethos, boom boom



Jayzoo, I never thought I'd come to General Chat for some light relief.

Over on the financial threads they are talking about Covid and it is dreary. 

gg


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> With regard making it personal, you are the one that keeps saying "I don't get it", because I don't capitulate to your one dimensional argument, yet you don't accept there are legal Freedoms  and social freedoms.
> If standing up for my beliefs in a constructive and defensive manner, is making it personal, what is your constant barrage of of questioning my cognitive faculties?
> Oh my apologies, I forgot, it's o.k for the left to say WTF they like, whereas if I say something it's a personal attack .



This is about *your posts *here which are* NOT *about free speech*.*
Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
At no point have you grasped that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried". And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

rederob said:


> This is about *your posts *here which are* NOT *about free speech*.*
> Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
> At no point have you grasped that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried". And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.




Freedom of speech is entwined with freedom to be heard.

What is "carried" depends on the prejudices of the "carrier".

If a politically correct carrier like the ABC doesn't like offending anyone, then it will cull posts even if they are factual.

If a Right Wing carrier doesn't like contrary posts it won't publish them or if its a shock jock will ridicule a caller or cut them off.

Fortunately we have a mentor here who is very broadminded up to a reasonable point, but if you express opinions on other carriers that don't agree with you, then prepare for your right to be heard to be curtailed.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Freedom of speech is entwined with freedom to be heard.



Only to the extent that your message is "carried".
You have very few privileges as to where or how you are heard.


SirRumpole said:


> What is "carried" depends on the prejudices of the "carrier".



Exactly!


SirRumpole said:


> If a politically correct carrier like the ABC doesn't like offending anyone, then it will cull posts even if they are factual.



I have no idea what that means.  The ABC is "rules" driven.   If their publishing rules are breached they get sanctioned.


SirRumpole said:


> If a Right Wing carrier doesn't like contrary posts it won't publish them or if its a shock jock will ridicule a caller or cut them off.



Correct.


SirRumpole said:


> Fortunately we have a mentor here who is very broadminded up to a reasonable point, but if you express opinions on other carriers that don't agree with you, then prepare for your right to be heard to be curtailed.



If you do not become a member of ASF you cannot post here.
@Joe Blow does not offer posting privileges to non-members so is discriminating against most Australians.  
As I keep saying, you can shout what you like from the street corner - free speech - but don't expect that what you say to be carried beyond that.  For that to occur other elements need to be involved.   They are the ones with platforms who, like @Joe Blow, act discriminatingly as their interests determine.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

rederob said:


> This is about *your posts *here which are* NOT *about free speech*.*
> Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
> At no point have you grasped* that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried"*. And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.



Well this is about* your posts *and *is *about free speech
The platform or carrier, chose to write and carry that article, the subject was of and by the carriers choice, the carrier was pressure to remove the article by a vocal group that agitated her.
At no point have you grasped that *the article wasn't a contribution by the subject (Hanson)*, *it was an article chosen and written by the owner and carrier of the platform.*
What the agitators did was intimidate Rowe to have have article removed, because they didn't agree with its content, that is a form of intimidation and a curtailment of free speech.
You may not agree with me, as you often don't, but there are many out there that do, as a quick google search highlighted.








						Jessica Rowe caves into woke 'bullies' by deleting Hanson interview
					

When it comes to giving a platform to controversial public figures, Jessica Rowe has learned you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				








__





						Homepage - UK Time News
					






					www.uktimenews.com
				








__





						hemantekkahotandviral.com
					





					hemantekkahotandviral.com


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.



The problem is IFocus, Australia is made up of all sorts of people, when *you* chose who has the "Australian ethos", you are immediately allowing that decision to be controlled by whoever holds the stage.
That works fine when the side "you" agree with are holding the stage, not so well when those who you don't agree with hold the stage and start curtailing your right to say what you believe. 

That is where you hope the middle ground maintain control of the "stage", otherwise the loonies left or right, chose what is the "Australian ethos".


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Well this is about* your posts *and *is *about free speech
> The platform or carrier, chose to write and carry that article, the subject was of and by the carriers choice, the carrier was pressure to remove the article by a vocal group that agitated her.
> At no point have you grasped that *the article wasn't a contribution by the subject (Hanson)*, *it was an article chosen and written by the owner and carrier of the platform.*
> What the agitators did was intimidate Rowe to have have article removed, because they didn't agree with its content, that is a form of intimidation and a curtailment of free speech.
> ...



Once you involve the platform/carrier we cease discussing free speech.
I cannot make it any clearer.
What you are talking about in relation to Rowe's actions is the concept of "agency".


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Once you involve the platform/carrier we cease discussing free speech.
> I cannot make it any clearer.
> What you are talking about in relation to Rowe's actions is the concept of "agency".



You're a funny guy. 🤣  

I answered your points to the letter, now you want to change the issue, your a hoot.

History is littered with examples of sectors being bullied, ostracised, supressed and alienated.
All it did in the past was increase the resentment and resolve of the disenfranchised group, but I guess if you rant and chant that your doing it in the name of inclusion and acceptance, it's o.k this time.
Bashing people into forced submission somehow makes it right, or punishing them for voicing an alternative view, didn't work well in the past. 🤣
I would have thought engaging with them, discussing their objections and concerns and trying to resolve them, was a far better method that trying to gag them.
But hey I'm only a middle of the road pleb, not a Rhodes scholar, as some feel they are. 

By the way the platform carrier, was involved from the very beginning, just in case it slipped your notice. 🤣


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> You're a funny guy. 🤣
> 
> I answered your points to the letter, now you want to change the issue, your a hoot.
> 
> ...



It's groundhog day all over again: not a single point you have made relates to free speech. 
And you have not worked this out yet!


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

rederob said:


> It's groundhog day all over again: not a single point you have made relates to free speech.
> And you have not worked this out yet!



Because you ordain it.
In my opinion and many others, as I posted, they interpret what happened as a attack on the a persons right to freely discuss a subject, without fear of reprisal or personal attack.
We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues. 
Personally I'm pleased that those in Parliament, seem to have a lot more balanced view.
But I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as usual.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Because you ordain it.



No, because you cannot show that Hanson was stopped saying what she did to Rowe.
That Rowe changed her mind in relation to how Hanson's story was told is a matter of *agency*.


sptrawler said:


> In my opinion and many others, as I posted, they interpret what happened as a attack on the a persons right to freely discuss a subject, without fear of reprisal or personal attack.



How is a reaction to what has been said a violation of one's free speech?
The fact they said something means they exercised their right to free speech.


sptrawler said:


> We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues.



That's a different subject altogether.

Once your comments deviate from an individual's right to say something then you move away from the topic of free speech.  Not a single comment of yours was on topic.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

Unlike you, I will allow the other members to decide that.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2021)

> Unlike you, I will allow the other members to decide that.



For we need to do here is indulge in a bit of reductive reasoning.

You can say whatever the f*** you want, but you can only say it exactly  at halfway point between Meekatharra and Mt Magnet, between the hours of 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., on any February 29th, providing no vehicle headlights or tail lights are visible.

Yes you can say whatever you want, you have free speech. 

Rederob reasoning 101


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> For we need to do here is indulge in a bit of reductive reasoning.
> 
> You can say whatever the f*** you want, but you can only say it exactly  at halfway point between Meekatharra and Mt Magnet, between the hours of 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., on any February 29th, providing no vehicle headlights or tail lights are visible.
> 
> ...



Yes you are free to say it, but if anyone dares to repeat it, they are fair game and a public target for acceptable abuse.
In the name of inclusiveness, acceptance and free speech.
Rob reasoning 101


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues.





rederob said:


> That's a different subject altogether.



If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.

If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.

If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.
> 
> If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.
> 
> If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.



No smurf that isn't curtailing "free speech", it is just someone exercising their dominant position, apparently that is o.k because no one is stopping them from speaking up. 🤣

Also that doen't fall under "free speech", that falls under "right to remain silent", as Rob said, Rowe should have exercised it, then she wouldn't get bullied. 

Looney left book of rights.
Chapter 3, do as we say and you'll be o.k


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.
> 
> If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.
> 
> If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.




Great response smurf.

To summarise for rederob,

The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.


----------



## basilio (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.




I think you missed Rederobs point.  No one was *denying *Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

basilio said:


> I think you missed Rederobs point.  No one was *denying *Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.




I've no idea what the issue with Hanson was , I was speaking generally.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

basilio said:


> I think you missed Rederobs point.  No one was *denying *Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.



Nobody did deny Pauline Hanson the right to speak, she wasn't the one who was attacked, come on Bas, get up to speed.
Rowe published, on her own platform, a non political expose on the human side of Paulin Hanson, for that she was attacked and intimidated to remove the content.
Well at least your post, highlights why the silent majority, remains silent.


----------



## IFocus (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Nobody did deny Pauline Hanson the right to speak, she wasn't the one who was attacked, come on Bas, get up to speed.
> Rowe published, on her own platform, a non political expose on the human side of Paulin Hanson, for that she was attacked and intimidated to remove the content.
> Well at least your post, highlights why the silent majority, remains silent.





That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.



Well as long as I can keep filling in the ones you dig, I'm happy. 🤣

Luckily there are plenty of posters who don't think I'm digging a hole, beside you, Rob, Bas and of course Humid, but hey if I wasn't stepping on your toes I'd be worried. 

When you guys start agreeing with me, it is time to call it a day.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> To summarise for rederob,
> 
> The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.



Not apt.
Free speech carries repercussions.  Smurf provided examples.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.



What hole?


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> What hole?



Dont worry about it, the difference between me and them is, I would have the same stance whether the issue was over Pauline Hanson, or Greta Thunberg.
They are that concerned with inclusiveness and acceptance, they choke on their hypocrisy.  🤣


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Dont worry about it, the difference between me and them is, I would have the same stance whether the issue was over Pauline Hanson, or Greta Thunberg.
> They are that concerned with inclusiveness and acceptance, they choke on their hypocrisy. 🤣



The strange thing about all this is that it's the progressive side of politics that loses from limitations on free speech.

Conservatives have nothing to fear from someone being gagged since by their very nature they're not seeking change in the first place.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> The strange thing about all this is that it's the progressive side of politics that loses from limitations on free speech.
> 
> Conservatives have nothing to fear from someone being gagged since by their very nature they're not seeking change in the first place.




Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged by the progressive Left via the 'cancel culture' that has emerged against anyone that speaks out against political correctness when it contravenes the facts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged



Agreed they're generally the ones gagged but they don't greatly lose from it.

If the debate's killed off or goes nowhere then that suits a conservative just fine.

Environmentalism is a case in point. Arguments for or against aside, a generation ago well it was whales, sand mining, uranium, dams, forests and so on and society did indeed change.

Today it's "climate change" which has gone around and around forever and isn't actually being addressed. It's just become one of those background sort of subjects that's perpetually in the news with nothing much being done about it. Environmentalism isn't what it used to be, it has been largely neutered in practice.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed they're generally the ones gagged but they don't greatly lose from it.
> 
> If the debate's killed off or goes nowhere then that suits a conservative just fine.
> 
> ...




Yes, when the Conservatives are in power they just ignore things they don't want to know about, and suffocate the activists with silence.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> the Conservatives



Point of order: This mob of petty tyrants are no conservatives, they (along with labor) are all fascists in the truest sense.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, when the Conservatives are in power they just ignore things they don't want to know about, and suffocate the activists with silence.



Yep - I'm not saying it's right but as I see it they're not losing from it. That is, they're getting the end result they want of continuing without change.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged by the progressive Left via the 'cancel culture' that has emerged against anyone that speaks out against political correctness when it contravenes the facts.



The problem is by its nature, a stock forum has a high percentage of relatively affluent or upwardly mobile individuals, so there will tend to be an elite left leaning bent to the posters.
Most right wing loonies I've met are from a  disenfranchised working class background, with limited avenues for advancement, so the chances of those having representation on a stock forum is very slim.
With that in mind one has to balance the opinion on here, with an eye on the people who would be posting and with that in mind add a weighting to the "average" Australian.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The problem is by its nature, a stock forum has a high percentage of relatively affluent or upwardly mobile individuals, so there will tend to be an elite left leaning bent to the posters.
> Most right wing loonies I've met are from a  disenfranchised working class background, with limited avenues for advancement, so the chances of those having representation on a stock forum is very slim.
> With that in mind one has to balance the opinion on here, with an eye on the people who would be posting and with that in mind add a weighting to the "average" Australian.




Mmm. There seems to be an 'elite' Left and a 'marginalised' Left  with the 'centre' ie the average salaried or wages employee sitting in the middle very confused.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> There seems to be an 'elite' Left and a 'marginalised' Left with the 'centre' ie the average salaried or wages employee sitting in the middle very confused.



Stand facing whatever screen you are reading this on.

Now turn 180 degrees to the Left and note what you see.

Turn back to look at the screen.

Now try turning 180 degrees to the Right and note what you see.

Go to the extreme Left or extreme Right and you end up in a rather similar place.

Extreme Right doesn't like foreigners, vaccination or big government.

Extreme Left doesn't like foreign ownership, chemicals or big business.

The two extremes are far more similar than either would like to admit.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Mmm. There seems to be an 'elite' Left and a 'marginalised' Left  with the 'centre' ie the average salaried or wages employee sitting in the middle very confused.



Absolutely, there are the very well off, the fairly well off and the comfortable, you could also add to that those on a indexed public service pension who don't have a financial problem.
The average wage earner isn't well represented, also any on here, are here to hopefully further their financial knowledge, not debate politics.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Stand facing whatever screen you are reading this on.
> 
> Now turn 180 degrees to the Left and note what you see.
> 
> ...




Interesting you said that. I reckon the anti lockdown protests in Melbourne contained elements of both the extreme Left and extreme Right, one wanting a lawless State, the other wanting enforcement of their own laws, united in a common anti government coalition.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting you said that. I reckon the anti lockdown protests in Melbourne contained elements of both the extreme Left and extreme Right, one wanting a lawless State, the other wanting enforcement of their own laws, united in a common anti government coalition.



The situation in Melbourne and Sydney would be extreme, high personal debt and no control over your ability to earn a wage, shocking situation and massively stressful. Been there done that.
Add to that the reluctance to want something injected, when your not sure about it, then being told you are going to get it whether you want it or not, so suck it up princess.
Not a good recipe for a group sing along.
All that happened was, the authorities were looking for a scapegoat, which in the circumstances is all they could do, to defuse the situation IMO.
But we are moving away from "free speech".


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Stand facing whatever screen you are reading this on.
> 
> Now turn 180 degrees to the Left and note what you see.
> 
> ...



Yes...

But over simplified.

Nuance rules, bro.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Add to that the reluctance to want something injected, when your not sure about it, then being told you are going to get it whether you want it or not, so suck it up princess.




I don't think that's the case. If anyone was held down and forcibly injected that would definitely be assault and a breach of human rights.

It may be a condition of employment (which may amount to the same thing) but it hasn't yet been tested in court.

Flu jabs are mandatory for some workplaces so the precedent has been set.

Having said that, there is definitely cause for concern about job losses, loss of freedoms etc, but the demonstrators mostly seemed to be rent-a-crowds.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2021)

You may be right, I don't live over that way, so I really don't know.
But to be told you get the jab, or lose your house, is pretty daunting.


----------



## Investoradam (8 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The situation in Melbourne and Sydney would be extreme, high personal debt and no control over your ability to earn a wage, shocking situation and massively stressful. Been there done that.
> Add to that the reluctance to want something injected, when your not sure about it, then being told you are going to get it whether you want it or not, so suck it up princess.
> Not a good recipe for a group sing along.
> All that happened was, the authorities were looking for a scapegoat, which in the circumstances is all they could do, to defuse the situation IMO.
> But we are moving away from "free speech".



It’s the basics of communism
Posts about lock downs are either deleted or receive a knock on the door from the police


----------



## Investoradam (8 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> Stand facing whatever screen you are reading this on.
> 
> Now turn 180 degrees to the Left and note what you see.
> 
> ...



The left do like foreign ownership as it was Gough Whitlam who signed Australia up to it  with the Lima Declaration and started the great Australian deal off


----------



## rederob (9 October 2021)

Investoradam said:


> It’s the basics of communism
> Posts about lock downs are either deleted or receive a knock on the door from the police



The internet was not around when Marx espoused the principles of communism.  Furthermore, you have confused totalitarianism with communism.  Marx actually advocated a free press, arguing in 1842  that restrictions like censorship were instituted by the bourgeois elite.


Investoradam said:


> The left do like foreign ownership as it was Gough Whitlam who signed Australia up to it  with the Lima Declaration and started the great Australian deal off



I suspect you know as much about the Lima Declaration as you do about communism.  The Lima declaration was about increasing the share of industrial production of undeveloped nations to 25% by 2000.  It had zip to do with foreign ownership, but a lot to do with "exploitation".  Some 45 years later little has changed in the latter regard.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 October 2021)

rederob said:


> The Lima declaration was about increasing the share of industrial production of undeveloped nations to 25% by 2000. It had zip to do with foreign ownership, but a lot to do with "exploitation". Some 45 years later little has changed in the latter regard.



The Lima declaration is a classic case of good intentions but lack of foresight.

Turned Australia from a manufacturing nation to one that focuses on resource extraction, most notably iron ore and fossil fuels.

Undeniably good for some previously undeveloped countries.

Terribly bad for the environment. CO2 emissions would almost certainly be far lower today without it.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> The Lima declaration is a classic case of good intentions but lack of foresight.
> 
> Turned Australia from a manufacturing nation to one that focuses on resource extraction, most notably iron ore and fossil fuels.
> 
> ...




As @rederob pointed out, people are still being exploited for political and commercial gain. Although the Chinese have improved their wealth levels a lot of the proceeds of their industry is being taken away and turned into weapons and corruption is rife so a few people are making a lot of money while the majority just gets by.

It's time for a rethink and maybe the West should start charging tariffs that equate to the difference between our average wages and those in the countries whose products we buy. At least that may force decent wages being paid to the people who produce the goods.


----------



## basilio (9 October 2021)

Historical practical solutions to this  difficult problem


----------



## rederob (9 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> The Lima declaration is a classic case of good intentions but lack of foresight.
> 
> Turned Australia from a manufacturing nation to one that focuses on resource extraction, most notably iron ore and fossil fuels.
> 
> ...



Australia did not act on the Lima declaration.
I think you have got the wrong stick.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Australia did not act on the Lima declaration.



Well then why sign up to it, in the first place? Just another brain fart, or a publicity stunt maybe?

I know I shouldn't bite and I know how this will end up, but I just can't help myself. 🤣


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Australia did not act on the Lima declaration.



We signed up to it and embraced globalisation and our place in the world doing what we're good at. That is, mining.

Meanwhile we've seen previously undeveloped countries develop rapidly with a huge consumption of resources.

Good news economically for the people in those countries most certainly.

Dreadful news for the planet if the climate change science is even slightly correct since the whole thing has sent emissions higher.

Also there's the political implications. As the economy shifted, it's a reality that in Australia in 2021 you're more likely to own an investment property than to be a member of a union meanwhile just about everyone with a job, and many others, has investments in shares at least via superannuation.

Who wins elections = who's perceived as good for business, good for shareholders, good for development and so on. That's what happens when the traditionally union-dominated industries are gutted and the population become investors, sole traders, contractors and so on.

For the record, both sides of politics have in the past claimed we signed up to Lima. Going back a long way but from memory the Coalition made the claim and Labor acknowledged it under questioning at the time. Various others at both ends of the political spectrum have likewise either claimed it directly or claimed that the implication of offshoring manufacturing was a given.


----------



## rederob (11 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> We signed up to it and embraced globalisation and our place in the world doing what we're good at. That is, mining.
> 
> Meanwhile we've seen previously undeveloped countries develop rapidly with a huge consumption of resources.
> 
> ...



Lima had no impact on globalisation in our contemporary economic sense.
Moreover, Australia's mining boom was a localised affair and had nothing to do with globalisation.
Whitlam had lowered most tariffs by 25% in 1973, some 2 years before the Lima declaration, and post-1975 Fraser's government was anything but globalist.
The good news for lesser developed economies didn't really get underway the 1990's as trade walls started to fall away as evidenced by the 2 charts below:





*Note Australia's tariff rate (above) was at 18.56% in1991, while below all selected countries have lesser rates for the most recent 10 year period:*





Better indicators of globalisation markers were fall of Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by creation of new Russian federation in 1991, and later on when China joined the WTO in 2001.
A greater business impact has been through the World Economic Forum, but this preceded Lima by 4 years.
People who raise Lima as a trigger for globalisation, or that it was even impactful, have no idea that it was so ineffectual.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.








						Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case
					

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.




					www.theage.com.au
				



From the article:
A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom.

Peter Ridd had been a long-serving professor at the university when he was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

“So JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave,” Dr Ridd said in a statement posted to Facebook.

“It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs. All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.”

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.

On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.

The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified and quoted the famous 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill in their reasoning.

“Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world’,” the justices held, “the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind’.”

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”
The Institute of Public Affairs, which had helped Ridd run his case via crowdfunding and public relations support, said the decision showed Australia’s universities were mired in a crisis of censorship.

“Our institutions increasingly want to control what Australians are allowed to say and what they can read and hear,” executive director John Roskam said in a statement that also announced Dr Ridd would be joining the institute as an unpaid research fellow to work on “real science”.
Ahead of the decision on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge announced that all 41 Australian universities were now compliant with the French model code on free speech, proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French.
Loading
“This has taken two years to get to this point, but each university now has policies which specifically protect free speech,” Mr Tudge said.
The federal government has also legislated a definition of academic freedom into university funding laws - a push led by former education minister Dan Tehan who said last year that he’d received legal advice that Dr Ridd would not have been sacked had the definition been in place at the time.
The definition, which was also based on wording recommended by Mr French in his government-commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities, includes “the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research” and “to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research.”


----------



## rederob (13 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The case was not about free speech at all, although that's what Ridd hoped he would achieve.
The case was about the conditions of work that an employee agreed to upon engagement.
Ridd's position was that all of his conduct was an exercise of the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement and could not be a serious breach of the Code of Conduct.
(It probably did Ridd no favours that inept  federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta had previously found that James Cook University unfairly sacked him .)
In today's decision the High Court held that the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement was not a general freedom of speech. The exercise of intellectual freedom was subject to constraints including respect for the legal rights of others, and required that an expression of disagreement with University decision-making be in accordance with applicable processes, including confidentiality obligations. 
The Court found that JCU's termination decision was justified as it relied on Ridd's conduct which was the subject of 18 findings of serious misconduct which were not protected.
In relation to the Folau matter in another thread, readers should note the Court's findings at section 20 of the linked Order.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2021)

The cultural Revolution continues unabated.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

rederob said:


> The case was not about free speech at all, although that's what Ridd hoped he would achieve.
> The case was about the conditions of work that an employee agreed to upon engagement.
> Ridd's position was that all of his conduct was an exercise of the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement and could not be a serious breach of the Code of Conduct.
> (It probably did Ridd no favours that inept  federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta had previously found that James Cook University unfairly sacked him .)
> ...



The 18 findings of misconduct are the key issues.
In relation to the Folau incident, it was unfortunate that Rugby Australia chose to give him a multi million dollar payout, rather than test it in court.
Which is the way these issues should be tested IMO, rather than trial by media.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.



Yes, very foolish for doing real science rather than following a narrative.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.



From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.

_However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”_


----------



## Knobby22 (13 October 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.



I think he was ho







sptrawler said:


> From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.
> 
> _However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
> “This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”_



He was probably counting on support from the right wing media  trying to do a Falou. Falou though was about personal beliefs.
Operating out of his field, trying to damage colleagues, just acting stupidly.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> I think he was ho
> He was probably counting on support from the right wing media  trying to do a Falou. Falou though was about personal beliefs.
> Operating out of his field, trying to damage colleagues, just acting stupidly.



I hadn't read anything about the case in the media, until today, so obviously it didn't attract much attention.
Might be just another disenfranchised person, but it is interesting he took it all the way to the high court, must have had his nose seriously out place. It would have cost a bomb.
18 cases of serious misconduct, sounds like it would be interesting reading.


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2021)

He basically disagreed with the barrier reef narrative


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> He basically disagreed with the barrier reef narrative



It sounds as though, if he had kept it on that issue, he would have won the case.

_ The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.
.
On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.
The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”_


----------



## wayneL (13 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> It sounds as though, if he had kept it on that issue, he would have won the case.
> 
> _ The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.
> .
> ...



That may be so, but if the other professors involved were held to the same standard, they would also have been sacked.

This is the double standard in play.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> That may be so, but if the other professors involved were held to the same standard, they would also have been sacked.
> 
> This is the double standard in play.



The thing with courts is, they only deal with the issue presented, my guess is the professor lost his rag a few times and that part of the evidence justified dismissal.
If he had been sacked just on the basis of "treating other people in a courteous and respectful manner", the 2016 ruling would have been overturned.
Well that is what it sounds like to me.


----------



## sptrawler (13 October 2021)

Another article, that words the result better IMO.








						Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case
					

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.




					www.watoday.com.au
				



From the article:
Dr Ridd, a long-serving professor at the university, was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

Loading
In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, five justices of the High Court dismissed Dr Ridd’s appeal, finding his early criticism of climate research and the reef was protected by academic freedom *but that he later went much further, justifying his termination*.


----------



## IFocus (13 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Another article, that words the result better IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Wasn't the issue that he was commenting out side of his professional position?


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2021)

IFocus said:


> Wasn't the issue that he was commenting out side of his professional position?



Not according to the university.

_The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views _


----------



## rederob (14 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.
> 
> _However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
> “This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”_



Ridd was not confused.
He chose to defend his right to say as he pleased - without constraint.  To do that he needed to prove that cl. 14 did not apply and as most of his breaches stemmed from this it is called an "all or nothing" stance.  However, Ridd never contested his actions of misconduct, merely that cl. 14 allowed him say whatever he liked, and this was not true.
My link to the judgement unanimously dismissing the appeal spells out why, in detail.


sptrawler said:


> The thing with courts is, they only deal with the issue presented, my guess is the professor lost his rag a few times and that part of the evidence justified dismissal.



The judgement is 32 pages and covers *all* events and arguments.  Moreover, the judgement was forensic, covering some of the strict legal  *senses *of JCU's Enterprise Agreement which would not be obvious to a lay reader.  It should be noted that Ridd's conduct was never unlawful (s. 19).  Instead, Ridd's serious misconduct was in breach of his EA and JCU properly exercised a right to terminate his employment.
An interesting point regarding this case was that "intellectual freedom" was never "defined" in JCU's EA, which is curious - I prefer unforgivable - given that JCU employs many "intellectuals".
The parallel with Folau's case is obvious.  Folau did not act unlawfully and, like Ridd, agreed that his actions breached his undertakings.  I suspect in hindsight RA regrets not taking the matter to a judgement based on Ridd's case.


sptrawler said:


> If he had been sacked just on the basis of "treating other people in a courteous and respectful manner", the 2016 ruling would have been overturned.
> Well that is what it sounds like to me.



There was never a 2016 *ruling*. 
You should rely on the judgement rather than piecemeal journalistic snippets that confuse contexts.


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2021)

rederob said:


> There was never a 2016 *ruling*.
> You should rely on the judgement rather than piecemeal journalistic snippets that confuse contexts.



Which goes to my other pet hate, the media and pizz poor reporting. 
I certainly hoped the Folau case would go to court, it would have put paid to the trail by media.


----------



## sptrawler (14 October 2021)

Interesting read @rederob , it sounds as though the main issue was poorly structured defence by Ridd.
If he had separated the issues the findings might have been different, bundling the whole issue under the cl. 14 banner was flawed, I'm surprised the lawyers didn't pick that up the Judges did very quickly.
The right to "intellectual freedom" doesn't cover the right to breach confidentiality agreements, it also doesn't cover the right to not follow due process.

Like the Judges said his stance on some of the issues, were inexplicable:
_The Full Court considered this stance of Dr Ridd to be "inexplicable"4 . But Dr Ridd chose not to contest any of the findings of serious misconduct other than on the basis that he was protected by cl 14. The same stance was taken in this Court.
_


Another thing of note IMO was:
_"where there is conflict between a genuine exercise of intellectual freedom and a requirement of the Code of Conduct, the former prevails to the extent of the inconsistency" 5 . His Honour would have remitted the matter to the primary judge for further factual findings._


----------



## rederob (14 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> That may be so, but if the other professors involved were held to the same standard, they would also have been sacked.
> 
> This is the double standard in play.



You are consistently inept with your comments.
Given no others at JCU breached the Code of Conduct, and that Ridd's right to disagree was not a considered a breach of the Code, there can be no double standard at play. 
At least @sptrawler took the time to read and understand the judgement.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Interesting read @rederob , it sounds as though the main issue was poorly structured defence by Ridd.
> If he had separated the issues the findings might have been different, bundling the whole issue under the cl. 14 banner was flawed, I'm surprised the lawyers didn't pick that up the Judges did very quickly.
> The right to "intellectual freedom" doesn't cover the right to breach confidentiality agreements, it also doesn't cover the right to not follow due process.
> 
> ...



Bad strategy by the lawyers.


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> The thing with courts is, they only deal with the issue presented, my guess is the professor lost his rag a few times and that part of the evidence justified dismissal.
> If he had been sacked just on the basis of "treating other people in a courteous and respectful manner", the 2016 ruling would have been overturned.
> Well that is what it sounds like to me.



I'm not really accusing court of a double standard, but I am accusing the university of double standards.

Ridd himself has admitted that the university had indeed acted within the letter of the law and its contract with him, but very much breached the spirit of academic freedom.

The court did make the right legal decision, however the state of academic freedom is in peril, despite recent legislative changes. This is Ridd's overarching point.


----------



## rederob (14 October 2021)

wayneL said:


> I'm not really accusing court of a double standard, but I am accusing the university of double standards.
> 
> Ridd himself has admitted that the university had indeed acted within the letter of the law and its contract with him, but very much breached the spirit of academic freedom.
> 
> The court did make the right legal decision, however the state of academic freedom is in peril, despite recent legislative changes. This is Ridd's overarching point.



Academia has a well established framework for professional critiques and these were built into JCU's Code of Conduct and referenced in their Enterprise Agreement.
Ridd deliberately went outside this framework in full knowledge his actions were contrary to professional standards and was censured by JCU.  So to claim JCU was in breach when it was in fact Ridd is a denial of reality.
Here's what JCU's actual EA allowed at the time:






Ridd's problems stemmed not from his actual professional views but instead from how he went about expressing them.  Most workplaces, even outside academia, have guidelines (such as codes of conduct) in place which cover how you represent your work-related views externally.  Indeed, the well publicised Folau case is another prominent example.
Vested media interests are spinning very different and selective stories about Ridd's case, but they mostly miss what the matter was about. In very simple terms is was about the correct application of employment contract law.  
If you think this case was about free speech or intellectual freedom you the court judgement well and truly puts that idea to rest.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Academia has a well established framework for professional critiques and these were built into JCU's Code of Conduct and referenced in their Enterprise Agreement.
> Ridd deliberately went outside this framework in full knowledge his actions were contrary to professional standards and was censured by JCU.  So to claim JCU was in breach when it was in fact Ridd is a denial of reality.
> Here's what JCU's actual EA allowed at the time:
> 
> ...



Unfortunately Wayne, what Rob says is right, regarding Ridd, he confused the right to free expression to cover slagging off at the university and slagging off at their disciplinary codes and breached their agreement on confidentiality.
The whole basis of his claim of unfair dismissal, was base on "the right to intellectual freedom", if he had segregated them, the issues would have been dealt with differently.


With regard Folau the issues are completely different IMO, Folau wasn't commenting on any issue that pertained to the operation or running of the Rugby League, he was reciting an extract from a religious scripture as a pastor of that religion, Rugby Australia chose to make an example of him as not being inclusive to members of rugby, because he recited those scriptures.
They were given a prompting by one of their sponsors, saying they would withdraw their sponsorship if they didn't make an eaxampe of him apparently.
After taking a deep breath, they thought what a FFcking mess, gave him millions of dollars and bite the bullet, many lost their jobs afterwards, but yet @rederob still runs the banner. 🤣
It does exemplify Labors policy decision making processes, deafness and who gives a $hit it is our way or the highway.
At least Albo seems to be moving on, from the step on those who object mantra, because if they don't they will end up defunct. 

The problem is, as with union membership, there is no point representing the vocal 10%, the non vocal 90% will still win, that's democracy.
just my opinion.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

Imagine if Anthony Mundine had been banned from playing rugby or boxing  for life, because he had quoted the Koran, now that would make the news and the project and the QAnd A and every other loonie tune platform iMO.


----------



## rederob (15 October 2021)

sptrawler said:


> With regard Folau the issues are completely different IMO, Folau wasn't commenting on any issue that pertained to the operation or running of the Rugby League, he was reciting an extract from a religious scripture as a pavocal 90% will still win, that's democracy.



Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract.  Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.


----------



## moXJO (15 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
> Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract.  Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
> As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.



Nope disagree. He quoted religious text. There was no social media policy at the time. 
It would not have gone done the same. 
Sorry but it is widely different.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

Well the first thing you would have to do to win, would be to present what I said correctly, but that would be novel for you wouldn't it.lol
What the fluck is a provacal 90% will still win?

Busy trying to twist $hit around Rob?

Rugby Australia were in the $hit up to their ears and they are still trying to recover IMO.
You don't pay out millions, you can't afford, if you don't have to.
Get over it.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

rederob said:


> Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
> Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract.  Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
> As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.



No Ridd was busted for breaching confidentiality and slagging off at their disciplinary codes, not for the intellectual freedom part, don't try and put your own bent on it.
If Rugby Australia had a chance in hell of getting out of the hole they dug , they would have, instead they paid millions of dollars of members money to save face.
Thankfully most of them lost their jobs, the whole incident was a disgrace and an attempt to undermine the fabric that Australia is built on, the right for Australians to believe in whatever religion they wish to.
I personally am an atheist, so the religious part doesn't concern me, but the right to practice it does.
Same as the right to be gay.


----------



## rederob (15 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> Nope disagree. He quoted religious text. There was no social media policy at the time.
> It would not have gone done the same.
> Sorry but it is widely different.



You and @sptrawler are dead wrong - again - and the proof is in RA's media release which reiterates my points, eg:
*Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."*​Neither JCU nor RA restricted their employees from using media to air their beliefs.  However, as the High Court determined for Ridd, it was not unreasonable that they be conditioned.

I could have replaced RA with JCU in the above quote and it would have been their same position.  The only substantive difference between the two cases is the number of warnings Ridd got compared to RA's hurried decision to terminate Folau.  In that regard RA's actions may have been regarded as "disproportionate," in which case a substantial damages claim would have been warranted.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

Is that the same Raelene Castle who had to stand down over the fiasco, or a different one.Lol
No one even wanted to test Rugby Australia's lifetime ban in the courts, as was proven earlier in the year when Palmer was going to back Folau, the team capitulated and said he could play.
What a joke, if RA thought they could win the case, they wouldn't have paid him out, it wasn't as though they could afford it.


----------



## moXJO (15 October 2021)

rederob said:


> You and @sptrawler are dead wrong - again - and the proof is in RA's media release which reiterates my points, eg:
> *Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."*​Neither JCU nor RA restricted their employees from using media to air their beliefs.  However, as the High Court determined for Ridd, it was not unreasonable that they be conditioned.
> 
> I could have replaced RA with JCU in the above quote and it would have been their same position.  The only substantive difference between the two cases is the number of warnings Ridd got compared to RA's hurried decision to terminate Folau.  In that regard RA's actions may have been regarded as "disproportionate," in which case a substantial damages claim would have been warranted.



I'm sure we argued this endlessly in the other thread. At its core RA was influenced by Qantas knee-jerk reaction and jumped on the outrage bandwagon that then devolved into the mess we witnessed.

Folau quoting of a bible passage that pretty much pointed out a variety of sinners could also have been seen as him trying to "save souls" according to beliefs. 
Regardless there was no social media contract. Only the expectations laid out in the player conduct. 

Religion is a complete different kettle of fish.
RA made enough mistakes to lose the case.


----------



## rederob (15 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> Regardless there was no social media contract. Only the expectations laid out in the player conduct.



Verbal undertakings also form part of any contract and these were laid out beforehand.
Aside from that there was no need for a specific social media clause as RA's code of conduct was crystal clear in relation to what constituted a breach, and Folau even admitted in his tribunal hearing to such a breach.


moXJO said:


> Religion is a complete different kettle of fish.



So is hate speech, sexual discrimination and disrespect.


moXJO said:


> RA made enough mistakes to lose the case.



There was a confidential settlement.
Furthermore, there was no lifetime ban on Folau, as suggested by @sptrawler.  He must have got another wrong end of the media stick that keeps beating him up.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 October 2021)

rederob said:


> *Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."*




Stuff the employers values, individuals are allowed to have their own values in a free society and to express those values outside the workplace without fear of retaliation. This is the point that you continually fail to understand.

If an employee was sacked for expressing political opinions that differ from their employer there would justifiably be outrage , but because you disagree with what Folau said your moral indignation blinds you to the fact that he has a right to say what he did.

Employers have no right to dictate moral behaviour , only behaviour that involves the job the employees were employed to do.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2021)

Both vaxed and unvaxed Victorian members of parliament prevented from voting for not handing over their medical information.

Just let that sink in.


----------



## rederob (15 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Stuff the employers values, individuals are allowed to have their own values in a free society and to express those values outside the workplace without fear of retaliation. This is the point that you continually fail to understand.



The Ridd case was conclusive in this matter, and you are incorrect.  If you don't understand our system of laws then best you don't comment!


SirRumpole said:


> If an employee was sacked for expressing political opinions that differ from their employer there would justifiably be outrage , but because you disagree with what Folau said your moral indignation blinds you to the fact that he has a right to say what he did.



I have consistently said that Folau is a fool in my eyes, and he's welcome to his stupid ideas.  However, as I repeat again, actions have consequences.  


SirRumpole said:


> Employers have no right to dictate moral behaviour , only behaviour that involves the job the employees were employed to do.



You are a broken record.  Folau admitted he breached RA's code of conduct at his tribunal hearing.  He was never censured for his morality or religion.  You have never grasped these differences.


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

Here is the whole story, not just Rob's interpretation.  
https://www.afr.com/companies/sport...l-team-played-rugby-australia-20191216-p53kcr


----------



## sptrawler (15 October 2021)

And to just highlight what I've always said:








						Challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandate fails in NSW Supreme Court
					

Justice Robert Beech-Jones found that restrictions on movement according to vaccination status “are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises”.




					www.smh.com.au
				




All Rugby Australia had to do, was go to court, to prove whether they were correct in their decision to sack and ban Folau, or flawed in the decision.
They didn't, they paid him millions for their blunder, yet we still have people trying to say they were right.

But the Folau issue just highlighted, there are some people at the sharp end of the issues and there are others who are bell ends. 🤣


----------



## moXJO (15 October 2021)

I'm not going around in circles again as the only way it would be resolved would be in court. 
Needless to say, I find it comical that the Qantas ceo who kicked up the stink and whom RA was so desperate to appease by kicking off this whole saga. Ended up dropping sponsorship anyway.

So RA:
 Lost the payout. 
Fired their best player.
Fired their CEO.
Lost their main sponsor.
Put half the team offside.
Lost half the fan base.
And were last year looking at insolvency.

Funny stuff....


----------



## IFocus (15 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Stuff the employers values, individuals are allowed to have their own values in a free society and to express those values outside the workplace without fear of retaliation. This is the point that you continually fail to understand.
> 
> If an employee was sacked for expressing political opinions that differ from their employer there would justifiably be outrage , but because you disagree with what Folau said your moral indignation blinds you to the fact that he has a right to say what he did.
> 
> Employers have no right to dictate moral behaviour , only behaviour that involves the job the employees were employed to do.





Afraid that's is actually the case Rump, my last job the HR department almost doubled and pretty much did what you are advocating against and they were an ultra right wing conservative American mob.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 October 2021)

Laws protecting freedom of speech at unis should be used to challenge climate science, Alan Tudge says​
A subtle case of hypocrisy in Tudge's reaction.

Just shows how intolerant some people can be to simple questions.









						Laws protecting freedom of speech at unis should be used to challenge climate science, Alan Tudge says - triple j
					

"Of course academics should be able to challenge all science which is going on."




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## rederob (16 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> I'm not going around in circles again as the only way it would be resolved would be in court.
> Needless to say, I find it comical that the Qantas ceo who kicked up the stink and whom RA was so desperate to appease by kicking off this whole saga. Ended up dropping sponsorship anyway.
> 
> So RA:
> ...



According to Folau this was God's will .


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2021)

rederob said:


> According to Folau this was God's will .



Also don't forget, the perpatrators were going to be sent to a fictitious place, I mean the shear horror of being sent to "hell" must have given everyone nightmares.  

I'm surprised Raylene and the gang, didn't ask for Folau to jailed, for threating an act of terror. 🤣


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2021)

Interesting story out of Cambridge university.








						Don’t mention the war: why John Cleese pre-emptively cancelled himself
					

A Cambridge University cancel culture row has sparked a new discussion about wokeness, offence and free speech.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
There are many more important things going on in the world, but it is worth noting that we seem to have moved to a post-cancellation phase, best described as pre-emptive self-cancellation.

John Cleese, a comedy god whose surname was originally “Cheese” (his father changed it because he deemed it embarrassing), withdrew from a speaking event last week, saying he wanted to “cancel” himself before someone did it for him.
Cleese was referring to the contemporary version of cancellation, where a person – usually with a public profile – is the subject of a social media pile-on for a transgression of morality or taste. They may be dropped by their publisher, network or advertisers. Their reputation may be badly damaged and they may lose work.
The man who gave us Basil Fawlty had been invited to speak at his alma mater, Cambridge University, but pulled out after the student union decided to “blacklist” the art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon. The historian had offended students when he performed a Hitler impersonation during a debate on the question of whether good taste exists.

Cleese pointed out that he had done a Hitler impression, too (you could say his career was made on it). The actor tweeted: “I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply.”

Graham-Dixon had debated the affirmative case. He was trying to make the point that good taste exists because bad taste does, and bad taste is rooted in bad morals. Being an art historian, he made interesting points about how Hitler hated modern art, and the Nazis ripped Cubist and abstract works off gallery walls. The Nazis saw those forms of art as connected with gay, Jewish and African people, according to Graham-Dixon, so they annihilated the art before moving on to annihilating the people themselves.
I watched the speech. I struggle to see how anyone could have seen anything he said as endorsing Hitler, but the point failed to land. Graham-Dixon has since apologised, and said that he was trying “to underline the utterly evil nature of Hitler and his regime”.

For anyone who has ever attended a university debate, where precocity so often outweighs poise, it is hardly surprising that one of the speeches was a bit rubbish. But afterwards, the backlash began.

Cambridge Union president Keir Bradwell – who, it is worth noting, is only 21 – issued an apology, saying he should have intervened at the time.

“We will create a blacklist of speakers never to be invited back, and we will share it with other unions, too. Andrew will be on that list,” Bradwell said.
But then, perhaps realising what a massive own-goal it was to put potential speakers in fear of a blacklisting, Bradwell did a U-turn. He scrapped the blacklist, and said: “If there is a dichotomy between free speech and offence, I would defend free speech. I don’t want to create an impression that the union is against free speech.” It may be too late for that.

But the whole exercise underlines how hard it is, even for the younger generation, to navigate the etiquette they have helped create. If you elevate the taking of offence to the ultimate guiding principle, people will begin to operate out of fear of censure. That fear can impede creativity, especially in those who lack cultural power (which Cleese obviously does not).
It also makes it difficult to test your ideas in opposition to others’, something a university debating society should probably adopt as a priority.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2021)

I demand Cleese and the extant Pythons be cancelled from Australia for this sketch, Bruce.


----------



## qldfrog (30 August 2022)

While Europe is following the US deconstruction mission with Ukraine, it's committing suicide in another way:








						Europe's Twilight: Christianity Declines, Islam Rises
					

Comparing only the weekly frequency of Friday prayers in the mosque and Sunday Mass in the church, the future is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics [in France] are over 50 years old. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under the age of 50. In an




					www.gatestoneinstitute.org


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2022)

qldfrog said:


> While Europe is following the US deconstruction mission with Ukraine, it's committing suicide in another way:



Personally I'd gladly be rid of religion.

All of it.

It's one of the greatest causes of human misery throughout history. It might work in theory, and I'll concede that Christianity does have some lofty ideals, but the whole concept has a shocking track record when it comes to implementation.

If others wish to follow it then I accept their right to do so provided nobody who isn't a consenting adult is in any way involved. It's in the same category as sex - leave the kids and animals right out of it and let the adults be there only of their own free will, free to walk out at any time.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally I'd gladly be rid of religion.
> 
> All of it.
> 
> ...



I am fully agnostic but my experience in life and travel vastly favour the Judeo-Christian template to the green plague, and while the woke and Reset narrative focus on puny geopolitical games against Russia, or even China, and global warming BS, our western real values are rotten from the inside.. unless anyone see Kabul, Mali or   Pakistan as a model?
The European collapse that is now to be completed within a generation,have a pause,...outside sentimental aspect from my background and destruction of world iconic monuments,has serious implications in economy,world power,. And now safety for the naive foreign tourists heading this way like lambs to the slaughter ,at best to lose their money in puny street crime,at worst to be physically hurt, or murdered.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally I'd gladly be rid of religion.
> 
> All of it.
> 
> ...



On your last point, it is pretty clear there is not much free will left if that will does not follow the 7th century book in many European cities or suburbs.Ask women or lgbtxxx there.
My position against islam is foremost that aspect.as you, if adults want to bang their head on the floor to be bruised, other chanting to Krishna,Hail mary or yave, i could not care less since the inquisition is gone, great.
But be considered a non human, slaughtered..stabbed in the street or raped under the pretext that i do not worship their book.no thanks.
Ask saldam Rushdie or the thousands killed in Europe each year in complete silence and submissions.
Anyway, wanted to put a few figures here for aussies to realise, while we still can.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2022)

qldfrog said:


> I am fully agnostic but my experience in life and travel vastly favour the Judeo-Christian template to the green plague, and while the woke and Reset narrative focus on puny geopolitical games against Russia, or even China, and global warming BS, our western real values are rotten from the inside.. unless anyone see Kabul, Mali or Pakistan as a model?



Common sense tells me that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere seems like a dangerous experiment given uncertain consequences and the impracticability of reversing the change. 

For the rest though well yeah, the West needs a damn good look at itself because we're on the road to oblivion at the moment and suffice to say when that day comes, the earth's climate will be the least of anyone's concerns.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Common sense tells me that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere seems like a dangerous experiment given uncertain consequences and the impracticability of reversing the change.
> 
> For the rest though well yeah, the West needs a damn good look at itself because we're on the road to oblivion at the moment and suffice to say when that day comes, the earth's climate will be the least of anyone's concerns.



It seems to me that CO2 emissions are not really considered in Ukraine now, or even Europe burning coal like mad because of the sanctions while gas is flaring in Russia yet i thought we were all in it together.. priorities indeed.and maybe curbing world population in the last 30-40y since global warming was discussed could have helped more than building Teslas..but far less money to be made.....and green book not agreeing...
Anyway interlude over, back to the very choppy seas of the ASX


----------



## wayneL (27 November 2022)

Down the slippery slope we go:









						Crown Prosecution Service Says it is “No Longer Appropriate” to Quote Some Passages From the Bible in Public
					

A statement by the U.K.’s main prosecution service says it is “no longer appropriate” to read parts of the Bible




					dailysceptic.org


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2022)

Didn't know which thread to put this in, so here will do.
I see this guy has finally been sorted out.  









						Andrew Thorburn to step down from all board roles
					

The short-lived Essendon chief executive and former banker plans to spend more time with his family in 2023.




					www.smh.com.au
				



Short-lived Essendon Football Club chief executive Andrew Thorburn will quit all of his board jobs, including his role as the chairman of the City on a Hill church, amid ongoing controversy about the beliefs of the church.
The former National Australia Bank boss has made the decision after months of backlash about the church’s conservative views, which led to him resigning as the club’s CEO just one day after his appointment.


----------



## sptrawler (20 December 2022)

Messy, messy, messy.








						Bombers settle with Thorburn over ex-CEO’s exit
					

Essendon have come to a settlement with their short-lived former CEO Andrew Thorburn, apologising to the ex-NAB chief and donating an undisclosed amount to an ethics institute.




					www.theage.com.au
				



From the article:
Essendon have come to a settlement with their short-lived former CEO Andrew Thorburn, apologising to the ex-NAB chief and donating an undisclosed amount to an ethics institute.
The Bombers announced the agreement on Tuesday afternoon. Thorburn will not receive any money from the club.
Thorburn resigned in October after a day in the job when the Bombers gave him the choice between keeping his role as chairman of City on a Hill church or remaining Essendon CEO.
Thorburn’s church’s views on social issues and inclusion had not been the issue for the club, but holding the leadership position of the church was deemed untenable if he were to be CEO of Essendon.

“The board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as chairman, he couldn’t continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as chairman of City on the Hill,” club president David Barham said when Thorburn resigned.
Essendon and Thorburn released a joint statement on Tuesday announcing that their dispute had been resolved.
“A critical element of this resolution is to enable a wider community conversation on the importance of freedom of conscience, religion and belief and how to have respectful dialogue between people with different views and perspectives,” the statement read.

“All people should be respected and welcomed in workplaces and community organisations. No one should have to choose between their faith or sexuality, and their employment. Further, everyone should be able to openly express their personal position, in a respectful way, without fear and still feel that they belong. Genuine diversity and inclusion also includes people of faith.
“The club acknowledges that the events of October [Thorburn’s appointment and departure] should have been handled better and apologises for the impact it had on Mr Thorburn, his family and others.

“Both parties consider that elements of the public commentary at the time were extreme and wrong and counter-productive to the respectful community dialogue they agree is critical.
Thorburn said when he parted with Essendon that his concern was not about money but principle and that freedom of religion, conscience, thought and association were explicitly recognised as human rights under Victorian law.
“It is troubling that faith or association with a church, mosque, synagogue or temple could render a person immediately unsuited to holding a particular role,” Thorburn said in a statement at the time.
“That is a dangerous idea, one that will only reduce tolerance for others and diversity of thought and participation in our community and workplaces.”

As part of the confidential settlement Thorburn has agreed to drop all legal action.
Before his appointment, Thorburn had presided over a review, with Ernst & Young, of the club’s football operations, administration and culture.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 December 2022)

sptrawler said:


> “It is troubling that faith or association with a church, mosque, synagogue or temple could render a person immediately unsuited to holding a particular role,” Thorburn said in a statement at the time.
> “That is a dangerous idea, one that will only reduce tolerance for others and diversity of thought and participation in our community and workplaces.”



Never mind that religious organisations have been reluctant to employ staff who are atheists, or even just something like being openly gay, since forever.

This concept works in both directions....


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Never mind that religious organisations have been reluctant to employ staff who are atheists, or even just something like being openly gay, since forever.
> 
> This concept works in both directions....



Absolutely, but actively discriminating against them, for their discrimination is just as weird.
You can't cry exclusion, on the grounds of inclusion, it is just stupid.
There has to be a degree of common sense in this whole debate IMO.


----------



## qldfrog (5 January 2023)

Free speech:








						Opinion | The Campaign to Re-Educate Jordan Peterson
					

For speaking his mind, the psychologist could lose his license.




					www.wsj.com
				



And we stared at China and PolPot and their reeducation camps


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2023)

qldfrog said:


> Free speech:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unfortunately the article is paywalled, but it looks like another attempt at "cancellation" of an individual for daring to oppose the wokeness permeating our society. 

I don't know much about what JP is about, it seems he has become more political recently, but let's have all non violent views aired and discussed like sensible people without all these attack the man not the ball tactics.


----------



## wayneL (5 January 2023)

Orwell nailed it.


----------



## qldfrog (5 January 2023)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know much about what JP is about, it seems he has become more political recently, but let's have all non violent views aired and discussed like sensible people without all these attack the man not the ball tactics.



If only 
JP is in many way a hero in my view as he managed to raise true questions about our current  destruction of judeo christian culture, past the bashing, the hate and man, i would not have been able to do that.
He has culture, knowledge, is a very good talker and easily destroy intellectually most of the woke clique when offered a chance to debate discuss;
Most importantly, he has probably saved countless lives by offering young  boys/guys an alternate to suicide: you do not keep telling young white  teenagers boys that they are rubbish, worthless and not worth anything unless they become gay or glue themself on the next Picasso.
You may believe I am pushing but think about it:
 especially if you have a kid.or grandchild at school or uni and have direct knowledge on what is going on..I am NOT exaggerating.
Take the time to listen to him and redirect his talks videos etc if you have some young bloke in your circle who feel trapped.
And it is free


----------



## qldfrog (5 January 2023)

wayneL said:


> Orwell nailed it.




No talk, no science, no facts..the 2023 western world.
In former USSR, commoners were left alone, only the elite (writers, artists, public figures) were locked and targeted.
Nowaday in the west, even a GP can not state facts or figures unless it fits with the narrative, a uni teacher loses its job if it reveals factual data and a nurse or teacher aid is expelled from job for not following the Leaders talk.
USSR collapse as a result of 40y of economic decay, will the woke WEF west  follow?
I often feel we are just surviving on past efforts and success..so a limited future


----------



## The Triangle (5 January 2023)

qldfrog said:


> Free speech:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh mate...  Don't go there.

One thing I learned very quickly living with those beaver eating snow monkeys is that they *do not* have freedom of speech.  What they do have is an ingrained hatred of all things American - especially freedom of speech (and guns, Canadians really hate guns).   Trying to use freedom of speech excuse in that country is a one-way ticket to nowhere.


----------

