I have been trying to find out Gandalf's view on freedom of speech and blasphemy etc in this thread.

Muslims want to silence and intimidate you

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442

It sounds simple, but after about a dozen pages I have gotten as far as you would expect after two or three posts with an honest person. He is even more skilled than Abu at deflecting.

His first trick was to pretend he had difficulties understanding English, and that he thought we were asking him whether Muslims enjoy violence. He then claimed that he and most Australian Muslims support freedom of speech. Then it emerged he opposed it, for example by insisting the Muhammed cartoon should be illegal. He then rattled off a list of excuses for why he could not possibly give any other examples of what should be banned. His latest trick is to insist his opinion on what the law should be is exactly identical to what Australian law currently is, and thus is only willing to discuss what Australian law is and not his view on what cartoons and opinions should be banned. This is rather convenient for him, as Australian law is a fairly grey area at the moment, so he could deflect to this for a decade or so without ever saying what his views are.

So anyway, here is a thread for Gandalf to tell us what he thinks Australian law on the issue is, so he can stop complaining about me not wanting to discuss it in the other thread (and so you don't have to hire a lawyer to find out what he thinks).

Gandalf, please tell us what we can and cannot say under Australian law....

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

I have gotten as far as you would expect after two or three posts with an honest person

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

He is even more skilled than Abu at deflecting

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

His first trick was to pretend

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

list of excuses

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

His latest trick

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

he could deflect to this

Maybe if you stopped behaving like a 2 year old and acted a little less insulting to someone who has patiently attempted to answer all your queries in good faith, honestly and as frankly as I could - you might get a better response.

Anyway, as I have been saying all along (maybe you missed it FD - too busy looking for deflections maybe) - exercising anti-discrimination laws *IS* a grey area, but the concepts and principles behind them are very clear: people should have the right not to be vilified/intimidated and threatened, free speech should not extend to stirring hate against a group of people. These are fairly simple concepts, but of course the devil is in the detail. FD of course demands that I spell out exactly what this means (otherwise its 'deflective', being a typical dishonest muslim etc etc) - but of course its something that can only be judged on a case by case basis. I made a case for why I think the Muhammad- bomb in turban cartoon was vilifying by nature, and how its publishing *CAN* (though obviously not always) be vilifying. This seemed a pertinent case that we could talk about - but what I was trying to explain was you can't just make a blanket judgment "it should be allowed to be published" or "it should not be allowed to be published" - which I assume is what FD is all riled up about, and what prompted the deflection/ sneak muslim playing "tricks" tirade. However I think anyone looking at my argument calmly and objectively would understand that it is valid.

Seeing as you are avoiding the topic again, let's start with the most obvious example that demonstrates the huge gulf between your views and the reality. According to you, the beheading placards used in the Sydney protests are illegal. In reality they are not. It is not even a grey area.


Quote:

FD of course demands that I spell out exactly what this means

No. I even suggested you give a few more examples instead, which is when you started the latest round of deflections.


Quote:

but what I was trying to explain was you can't just make a blanket judgment "it should be allowed to be published" or "it should not be allowed to be published"

No you weren't. We had moved well beyond that to context, and I was highlighting the absurdity of some of your explanations. You were deflecting by insisting your opinion was identical to Australian law, which is deceptive at best seeing as even you recognise what a grey area it is at the moment, at least if you attempt to go by the statutes and pamphlets.


Quote:

but the concepts and principles behind them are very clear: people should have the right not to be vilified/intimidated and threatened

This is wrong. Just because someone feels intimidated, threatened or vilified does not mean their rights have been violated.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

According to you, the beheading placards used in the Sydney protests are illegal. In reality they are not. It is not even a grey area.

Once again I disagree. On what basis do you say they are not illegal? Because no one was arrested over it? Just because authorities can't be bothered pursuing violations of the law to the letter - doesn't mean they weren't still breaking the law. How do you propose to justify your claim that it wasn't illegal - given that it was clear call for violence against specific people (incitment)?


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

No. I even suggested you give a few more examples instead, which is when you started the latest round of deflections.

Well lets see, I gave you the restaurant scenario, the workplace scenario and the publication of the Muhammad cartoon by a hate group scenario. Is that what you call deflections? Please explain to me what is so inadequte or "deflective" about these examples? You seemed satisfied with the examples at the time - this deflections nonsense only came up later.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

You were deflecting by insisting your opinion was identical to Australian law

I gave you my position of the principles of vilification in relation to free speech - which just so happens to be consistent with existing Australian law. I then gave you several examples of how this could work in practice (ie context). What have I missed FD? Please explain to me in a clear and calm way - instead of launching another rant about deflections and tricks.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

This is wrong. Just because someone feels intimidated, threatened or vilified does not mean their rights have been violated.

Notice I didn't use the word "feels" - thats your little addition. I said people should have the right not to BE vilified - key difference. If people *ARE* being intimidated/vilified/threatened, then there rights absolutely are being violated.

Quote:

Once again I disagree. On what basis do you say they are not illegal? Because no one was arrested over it? Just because authorities can't be bothered pursuing violations of the law to the letter - doesn't mean they weren't still breaking the law. How do you propose to justify your claim that it wasn't illegal - given that it was clear call for violence against specific people (incitment)?

One of the women who brandished one of these placards handed herself into police. They laughed at her and told her to go away. It is not illegal.


Quote:

I gave you my position of the principles of vilification in relation to free speech - which just so happens to be consistent with existing Australian law.

Your absurdly vague description of your views on the matter are consistent with your equally vague description of the law. It sounded like you were attempting to regurgitate a pamphlet on the law, right up until you gave a specific example, which of course demonstrated you don't have a clue what the law is. From this point you were only willing to describe your views by regurgitating your poor understanding of the law or by simply insisting it is identical to the law.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

One of the women who brandished one of these placards handed herself into police. They laughed at her and told her to go away. It is not illegal.

Like I said, the absense of prosecution does not mean a violation of the law was not made. I suspect the police would laugh at someone who handed themselves in for downloading pirated movies too.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

It sounded like you were attempting to regurgitate a pamphlet on the law, right up until you gave a specific example, which of course demonstrated you don't have a clue what the law is

I think we are permitted to discuss this in this thread right?

If so perhaps finally you can start explaining what you mean by this. Or would you prefer more obfuscating?

Quote:

Like I said, the absense of prosecution does not mean a violation of the law was not made.

Actually it does. The law is defined by how it is enforced, not just how the statutes are framed.


Quote:

I suspect the police would laugh at someone who handed themselves in for downloading pirated movies too.

These are pursued in civil court. And the context of a violent riot that made headlines is hardly the same as such a petty matter. I can't imagine sending a stronger message to the public that this sort of thing is legal. If you have any contradictory examples, now would be a good time to present them. Or are you suggesting that your interpretation of a pamphlet you read about the law trumps reality?


Quote:

If so perhaps finally you can start explaining what you mean by this. Or would you prefer more obfuscating?

Sure. You took an absurdly vague description of a law or principle. You stuck "in a restaraunt" at the front of it. Now you think you have a specific example.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Actually it does. The law is defined by how it is enforced, not just how the statutes are framed.

That bears absolutely no resemblance to the real world FD. Kids are let off all the time for minor misdemeanors - because the weight of having a criminal record is deemed too harsh a thing to have hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Police and courts are making these sorts of judgment calls all the time. our justice system is not robotic.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Sure. You took an absurdly vague description of a law or principle. You stuck "in a restaraunt" at the front of it. Now you think you have a specific example.

The law is what it is. If you could point out what exactly you think I am wrong about the law that would be a great help. I think my examples are adequate and self explanatory enough for our purposes - but again if you think otherwise, please elaborate in a constructive way - not just more cryptic smarty pants negativity.

Quote:

That bears absolutely no resemblance to the real world FD. Kids are let off all the time for minor misdemeanors - because the weight of having a criminal record is deemed too harsh a thing to have hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Police and courts are making these sorts of judgment calls all the time. our justice system is not robotic.

That was my point gandalf. If they were robotic someone would go to jail every time someone else felt intimidated.


Quote:

The law is what it is.

Good point. But what is it?


Quote:

If you could point out what exactly you think I am wrong about the law that would be a great help.

The woman who carried the beheading placard did not break the law. The Muhammed cartoons did not break the law. The Muhammed video did not break the law. It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. Many people feel intimidated by my beauty and my intellect, yet I am free to roam the streets and make women blush.


Quote:

I think my examples are adequate and self explanatory enough for our purposes - but again if you think otherwise, please elaborate in a constructive way - not just more cryptic smarty pants negativity.

My problem with them is that they are wrong. Or at least, when you make specific claims about what is illegal, you are wrong.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

That was my point gandalf. If they were robotic someone would go to jail every time someone else felt intimidated.

No, your "point" was to claim that non-prosecution of an act means the act was legal, which of course is nonsense - for the reasons I stated.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

The woman who carried the beheading placard did not break the law.

Based on the idea that because she wasn't prosecuted, it must be legal - which as we have already established is rubbish.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating.

Quote:

The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.

Any plans to stop making such stupid claims? Oh right, that would mean you would have to stop posting altogether.

Quote:

No, your "point" was to claim that non-prosecution of an act means the act was legal, which of course is nonsense - for the reasons I stated.

In this case, yes, but I did not make the generalisation you suggest. The reasons you gave are absurd. All you did was give an example of a petty matter that is dealt with in civil courts being dismissed by police as an explanation for why police would ignore an act that you consider to be a crime, that made front page news, and for which no effort on the part of police was required to apprehend the perpetrator. What you are saying is stupid.

If you have any contradictory examples, now would be a good time to present them. Or are you suggesting that your naive interpretation of a pamphlet you read about the law trumps reality?


Quote:

Any plans to stop making such stupid claims? Oh right, that would mean you would have to stop posting altogether.

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. The law is defined not just how how it is stated in statute (and particularly not by your naive interpretation of an interpretation of statute) but also by how it is enforced.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

All you did was give an example of a petty matter that is dealt with in civil courts being dismissed by police as an explanation for why police would ignore an act that you consider to be a crime, that made front page news, and for which no effort on the part of police was required to apprehend the perpetrator. What you are saying is stupid.

There's no meaningful difference vis-a-vis the individuals involved. In both cases, charges were not pursued because the police deemed it not worth the trouble - *NOT* because they didn't think a breach of the law was made. Police know better than to charge a naive young mother over an ill-thought out gesture of defiance - in exactly the same way they routinely let first offender minors go with no more than a stern talking to.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. The law is defined not just how how it is stated in statute (and particularly not by your naive interpretation of an interpretation of statute) but also by how it is enforced.

Here's where you need to clarify your blanket statement, rather than simply repeat what is specifically refuted in the law. The very best you can say is that intimidation is only illegal in certain situations. But that obviously still makes a mockery of your claim that "it is not illegal to intimidate" - since it obviously can be illegal in certain situations

Quote:

There's no meaningful difference vis-a-vis the individuals involved. In both cases, charges were not pursued because the police deemed it not worth the trouble

Can you give an example, either imaginary or real, that would be worth the trouble? Suppose for example that the Muslims used the beheading placards to chop people's heads off. Would the police then make the effort to fine the Muslims for intimidating people then?

Also, if it is not possible to be legally punished for something, is that not the definition of legal? Or is legal defined by what you read in your pamphlets?


Quote:

Police know better than to charge a naive young mother over an ill-thought out gesture of defiance

I see you have googled the case. Recently you were telling everyone how they should be brought to justice. How naive do you have to be to carry a placard calling for people to be beheaded?


Quote:

in exactly the same way they routinely let first offender minors go with no more than a stern talking to.

Are you suggesting she would get arrested if she did it again?


Quote:

Here's where you need to clarify your blanket statement, rather than simply repeat what is specifically refuted in the law. The very best you can say is that intimidation is only illegal in certain situations. But that obviously still makes a mockery of your claim that "it is not illegal to intimidate" - since it obviously can be illegal in certain situations

How about this: you are incapable of giving a single example of any person being found guilty under any of these Australian laws, merely for intimidating people. If walking through Sydney with a few hundred angry, violent, rioting Muslims carrying placards calling for people's heads to be chopped off does not count as intimidation, please tell us what does count.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Can you give an example, either imaginary or real, that would be worth the trouble?

Any case where someone was prosecuted for vilification. I'm sure there must be hundreds of such cases. Even you could find one if you tried FD.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Also, if it is not possible to be legally punished for something, is that not the definition of legal?

I suppose it is. Nothing to do with what I was talking about though.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

I see you have googled the case. Recently you were telling everyone how they should be brought to justice.

Yes - and...?


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

If walking through Sydney with a few hundred angry, violent, rioting Muslims carrying placards calling for people's heads to be chopped off does not count as intimidation, please tell us what does count.

My question exactly. I would be genuinely interested to know why the police did not lay any charges to any of those placard holders. You say 'because its not illegal' - yet you haven't explained how that can be given what the law says about incitement to violence. Or is it that you don't consider such a sign as incitement to violence?

Quote:

Any case where someone was prosecuted for vilification. I'm sure there must be hundreds of such cases. Even you could find one if you tried FD.

I am vaguely aware of 2 or 3. Forget the outcome. I doubt they would number in the hundreds. I would be surprised if they made double digits.


Quote:

I suppose it is. Nothing to do with what I was talking about though.

Why is it irrelevant?


Quote:

Yes - and...?

Well, it was the only clear example you had given, and now you have changed your mind.


Quote:

My question exactly. I would be genuinely interested to know why the police did not lay any charges to any of those placard holders. You say 'because its not illegal' - yet you haven't explained how that can be given what the law says about incitement to violence.

I think the quotes you have been posting regarding the law (forget where from) are highly misleading and ambiguous. I suspect the law is equally ambiguous, and it has been completely left to judges to decide where yo draw the line. It does not surprise me at all that the placard bearers were not charged. Any such restriction on expression of political protest would make a judge or a crown prosecutor very nervous. I don't think Australia has any explicit protection on freedom of speech (eg via constitution) so judges etc have always played a key role in maintaining our freedom.


Quote:

Or is it that you don't consider such a sign as incitement to violence?

I think it is an incitement to violence. I think Islam is an incitement to violence. I think both should be protected under the principle of freedom of speech.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

I am vaguely aware of 2 or 3. Forget the outcome. I doubt they would number in the hundreds.

Here is a sample during the last few years. Its obviously not exhaustive. It obviously exceeds double digits.

I'll be particularly interested to read about the Catch the Fire Ministries Inc v Islamic Council of Victoria in detail.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Why is it irrelevant?

Because I was not talking about cases that are impossible to prove intent.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Well, it was the only clear example you had given, and now you have changed your mind.

Nope. thats your spin.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

I suspect the law is equally ambiguous, and it has been completely left to judges to decide where yo draw the line.

Thats exactly right FD - I'm glad you are beginning to understand that. Now do you see the absurdity of stating in black and white things like 'intimidation is not illegal'?


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

I think it is an incitement to violence.

Then its illegal. Simple.

bump

Quote:

Here is a sample during the last few years. Its obviously not exhaustive. It obviously exceeds double digits.

They are mostly discrimination cases, including ones from overseas. That is not really the same issue. There is only one vilification case.


Quote:

Thats exactly right FD - I'm glad you are beginning to understand that. Now do you see the absurdity of stating in black and white things like 'intimidation is not illegal'?

It is not absurd. It is true.


Quote:

Then its illegal. Simple.

So the Koran is illegal?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

So the Koran is illegal?

::)

Well I think it is an incitement to violence. That makes it illegal. It's that simple, remember?

Take it to court citing anti-discrimination, and let me know how you go FD.

Gandalf, are you still using the argument that your views exactly match Australian law to justify not explaining the extent to which you think freedom of speech should be restricted?

I've already explained FD - I support laws that protect people from being vilified on the basis of race/ethnicity/culture/religion. And I also support laws that makes it unlawful to incite violence against groups or individuals.

It just so happens that we have such laws. What this entails exactly is impossible to define until actual incidents are brought forward, and can be judged on a case by case basis. But it is enough for me to state my support for these broad principles - and therefore the law as it stands.

As the law currently stands it is legal to walk through Sydney with a bunch of angry, violent, rioting Muslims while carrying a placard calling for people to be beheaded.

I disagree. Its obviously far more cimplicated than that

How so?

You think these people should be arrested, yet even when they hand themselves over to police and admit their 'crimes' they are told to go away. Your views obviously do not match existing laws and no attempt to muddy the waters will change that.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 6:33pm:

How so?

Calling for someone to be beheaded is incitement to violence - I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. But calling for a person to be beheaded who is already the source of intense anger across the muslim world, and whose life is already under direct threat - is about as specific a threat as you can get.

So the default position is that such a placard in the context of a violent and angry riot, is illegal. However what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely.


freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 6:33pm:

You think these people should be arrested, yet even when they hand themselves over to police and admit their 'crimes' they are told to go away.

The rumour is she claimed she didn't know what the word "behead" meant. If true, then this obviously raises questions about her intent. In any case, your logic that because she wasn't charged, therefore it wasn't illegal, is patently absurd. I've already mentioned the example of the minors who are regularly let off without charge for stealing - and we obviously don't go around saying stealing is therefore legal.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 7:48pm:

But calling for a person to be beheaded who is already the source of intense anger across the muslim world

Pal, if we all acted on our 'intense anger' about Islam, there would be probably no Islam left to be intensely angry about.

You are exploiting, blatantly, the West's core principle of restraint and reasonableness and tolerance. That's the difference between the West and Islam and the billion varied subscribers to it: if the West had the attitude of Islam, it would have wiped all Muslims off the face of the earth already.

That is the difference between the West and Islam, and  that is why you are safe in the kuffar lands in a way that no kuffar is safe in Muslim lands. There is no Western equivalent of Jihad and you are exploiting that, in the name of jihad, to the max.

If both Islam and the West acted along the principles of Jihad, you would not exist. So you are very, very lucky that the West is not at all thinking along Islamic principles - your principles.

And we do not want to. So go and shove your ummah and jihad up your jumpers before it gets shoved up your arses.

what the f*ck are you talking about Soren?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 8:49pm:

what the f*ck are you talking about Soren?

I am saying is that your great good luck is that the opponents of Islam are not acting on Islamic principles.

Your Christian, Jewish and Hindu opponent have been far more humane than Islam.

Were they to act on Islamic principles, Muslims would have been wiped out by now: Christians throughout  what was the Roman Empire have been wiped out by Muslims, Jews have been dispersed and driven out, Hindus massacred, animists in Africa likewise.

If the world adopted Islamic principles of dealing with its Muslim attackers, Islam would be now a distance memory, like the Hittites and Babylonians.

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective.

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal.  >:(

bump

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective. And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal.  >:(

Go to the mosques where those placard carrying Muslims gather and tell them.



I dare you.


But you are a cowardly pussy and you'd rather argue with me about hair splitting BS forever. You are safe here. You know I will not harm you.

Go and argue with the Muslims who would harm you AND me. That's your goddam task, not bellyaching here with me.

Go get.

Those placards have been universally condemned by the Australian muslim community. We've been over this enough times.

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour, not what vigilante actions gandalf should be taking against the muslim community. I say its illegal according to existing laws, and the perps should be charged for incitement.

What say you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

What say you?

I say that it is your responsibility, and your responsibility alone as Muslims, that horrific acts are committed in the name of Islam with the full chapter and verse justification cited from the Koran to the accompaniment of full-throated allahu akhbaring.

I say that your work is cut out and you'd better get on with it. Talking to me is not where your task lies. Talking to me is weaseally arse-covering and diversion by you. 
Go and talk to your co-religionists who are ruining your reputation. But you are too afraid of them so you are badgering me endlessly about how peaceful your head hacking monsters really are.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law.

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 10:37pm: This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law. I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

No.
The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever?

The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect.

The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously.

That is the topic.

Quote:

Calling for someone to be beheaded is incitement to violence - I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

That is not what we are disagreeing over. I already said I agree with that. You are making a habit of this. Do you remember what this thread is about?


Quote:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

There you go Gandalf, that wasn't so hard was it?


Quote:

But calling for a person to be beheaded who is already the source of intense anger across the muslim world, and whose life is already under direct threat - is about as specific a threat as you can get.

I didn't mention any names.


Quote:

So the default position is that such a placard in the context of a violent and angry riot, is illegal. However what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely.

No Gandalf. The law is defined by how it is enforced.


Quote:

The rumour is she claimed she didn't know what the word "behead" meant. If true, then this obviously raises questions about her intent. In any case, your logic that because she wasn't charged, therefore it wasn't illegal, is patently absurd.

None of the people who did it were charged. The police made no attempt to charge them. The police made no statements even indicating it was illegal or that you could get charged. It is not absurd to conclude from that that it is legal. It is common sense. Add to this that you can not produce a single example of a person being charged for a similar offense and you are left with nothing (and no, a list of libel cases from around the world does not count).


Quote:

I've already mentioned the example of the minors who are regularly let off without charge for stealing - and we obviously don't go around saying stealing is therefore legal.

And I've already pointed out that this is not a trivial case. It is about as non-trvial as you can get, without using the placard to hack someone's head off.


Quote:

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal.

Is this you way of conceding it is legal?


Quote:

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

Gandalf, if a normal person wants to find out what the law is, they do not attempt to decipher vaguely written statutory legislation themselves. It is easy to reconcile - no-one was arrested for it. And your excuse about it being trivial is absurd.

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 11:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 10:37pm: This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law. I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law? No. The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever? The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect. The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously. That is the topic.

Sometimes you are so eloquent, Soren.            :)

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

That is not what we are disagreeing over. I already said I agree with that. You are making a habit of this. Do you remember what this thread is about?

Why yes I do - from the OP:


Quote:

So anyway, here is a thread for Gandalf to tell us what he thinks Australian law on the issue is

Here I am explaining to you "what I think Australian law on the issue is" - and I am telling you that incitement to violence is against the law. You agree that this action was incitement of violence, therefore you agree with me that this action was against the law.

If you seriously think that incitement to violence is not against the law,  then I suggest you get your head examined.


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

No Gandalf. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Well perhaps you can now answer my confusion - as I have mentioned it about 3 times now. Can you explain to me why people without a record (usually minors) are routinely let off with a warning after committing a crime such as stealing?

from the NSW Police department code of practice:


Quote:

Alternatives to arrest Be mindful of competing requirements between the rights of individuals to be free and the need to use the extreme action of arrest so you can commence proceedings against people who break the law. You must not arrest unless it is necessary to achieve one or more of the purposes set out in section 99(3) of LEPRA (see Exercising the power to arrest). The alternatives to arrest include the following: caution warning infringement notice penalty notice court attendance notice (eg ‘field’ or ‘future’ CAN) youth justice conference.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108808/Code_CRIME_-_January_2012.pdf

Note "caution" and "warning" - which can be issued to the offender entirely at the discretion of the attending officer.

It is entirely possible that the placard carrying woman (as well as any other placard bearer), was let off with a caution or a warning. No arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record. Like I said before, its entirely possible that they broke the law, but " what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely. "


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

None of the people who did it were charged. The police made no attempt to charge them.

And as just explained, this is no argument claiming that what they did wasn't illegal.


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

It is about as non-trvial as you can get, without using the placard to hack someone's head off.

I agree. And yet you seem to think its trivial enough to be deemed legal  ;D

I honestly can't understand how you can argue this. You agree that it is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is specifically criminalised under Australian law. Yet somehow with what must be the most extroardinary use of lateral thinking, you think that it is legal. Go figure.  :P


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

Gandalf, if a normal person wants to find out what the law is, they do not attempt to decipher vaguely written statutory legislation themselves.

But on this point it is not the least bit vague. Incitement to violence is illegal, there is no dispute there. And you agreed that this is incitement to violence. You agree that this activity was illegal, you're just too suborn to admit it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Those placards have been universally condemned by the Australian muslim community. We've been over this enough times.

I wait to be corrected, but no, to me i did not see any such a condemnation [of the 'beheading' placards, or of those marching with them], coming from the Sydney/Australian moslem community.

as per....
Evidence mainstream islam facilitates radicalism?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367633212/311#311

Quote:

The only thing that occurred subsequent to the street protests, was that the Sydney moslem community used weasel words - that made it sound [to non-moslems] like they were denouncing the protesters - but could have been interpreted BY ANY MOSLEM to have been criticism of police aggression against the moslem street protesters. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367379581/0#0 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367379581/28#28 [quote] THESE [below] ARE THE WORDS THAT WERE BROADCAST ON NATIONAL TV IN AUSTRALIA [AFTER MOSLEM PROTESTERS CARRIED PLACARDS IN THE SYDNEY CBD, CALLING FOR THE BEHEADING OF THOSE THAT OFFEND MOSLEMS/INSULT ISLAM]; "It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." <----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney.

[/quote]i
Quote:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour, not what vigilante actions gandalf should be taking against the muslim community. I say its illegal according to existing laws, and the perps should be charged for incitement.

Thank you for that, gandalf.

Yadda wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." <----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney.

I thought we were over this Yadda.

The question was, and I think I can quote verbotem from memory:

"Do you condemn those images of children holding placards calling for beheadings?"

to which he answered:
"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images."

I have linked you the video of that press conference. There is no ambiguity in that question and answer - none whatsoever.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective. And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal.  >:(

I am thinking you guys are at times unjust against gandalf.
He and I rarely agree, but on this time also we do.

an incitement to a violent act should be illegal. I thought it was.
I would not march down the street with a placard saying "murder all muslims."
If I did, I would expect to get in strife.

Quote:

Here I am explaining to you "what I think Australian law on the issue is" - and I am telling you that incitement to violence is against the law. You agree that this action was incitement of violence, therefore you agree with me that this action was against the law.

Sorry I keep forgetting. "It's that simple".


Quote:

Can you explain to me why people without a record (usually minors) are routinely let off with a warning after committing a crime such as stealing?

The warning tells them that what they did was illegal.


Quote:

Note "caution" and "warning" - which can be issued to the offender entirely at the discretion of the attending officer.

I don't see "laughed at and told to go away and stop admitting to non-crimes" listed as an option. Do you?


Quote:

It is entirely possible that the placard carrying woman (as well as any other placard bearer), was let off with a caution or a warning. No arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record. Like I said before, its entirely possible that they broke the law, but " what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely. "

Do you have any evidence of this, other than wishful thinking? Do you think the authorities would deliberately mislead the public by keeping it a secret while leading everyone to believe it is not a crime?


Quote:

And as just explained, this is no argument claiming that what they did wasn't illegal.

Yes it is, unless you invoke a conspiracy on the part of the authorities to trick people into thinking it is legal.


Quote:

I agree. And yet you seem to think its trivial enough to be deemed legal

Trivial and legal are not the same thing. BTW, if you concede it is non-trivial, why do you keep suggesting triviality as a reason for no charges?


Quote:

I honestly can't understand how you can argue this. You agree that it is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is specifically criminalised under Australian law.

Like I keep telling you, you are not a lawyer, and it is foolish for you to attempt to interpret statutory law.


Quote:

But on this point it is not the least bit vague. Incitement to violence is illegal, there is no dispute there.

Of course it is vague. Watching a boxing match and encouraging the contestants to beat each other up is also incitement to violence, yet not illegal. Like I keep telling you, you have not clue at all what those statutes mean in practice. You have no clue at all what the law is. You are merely regurgitating a pamphlet on hate crime.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

I don't see "laughed at and told to go away and stop admitting to non-crimes" listed as an option. Do you?

And who was told that FD? The placard mother? Of course you must have some evidence for such a claim right?

For all you know she *WAS* given a warning, you don't know do you? I don't know either, but I'm not the one trying to argue what the law says based on nothing but pure speculation as to what happened to her at the police station.


freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Trivial and legal are not the same thing. BTW, if you concede it is non-trivial, why do you keep suggesting triviality as a reason for no charges?

I don't. My point is that charging or not charging is at the discretion of the attending officer(s). I'm making mockery of your claim that someone can only be deemed to be breaking the law if the attending officer(s) decides to proceed with laying charges. Besides, I don't necessarily consider theft by minors as a trivial crime, but neither is laying charges on a minor giving them a criminal conviction hanging over their head for the rest of their lives. The police have to make the judgment call as to whether the communities' interests are better served by issuing a caution/warning. Similar situation for the placard mum.


freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Like I keep telling you, you are not a lawyer, and it is foolish for you to attempt to interpret statutory law.

Incitement to violence is illegal. I don't need to be an expert at interpreting statutory law to know that  :P


freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Of course it is vague. Watching a boxing match and encouraging the contestants to beat each other up is also incitement to violence, yet not illegal.

The violence has to be illegal - obviously. If it was an underground/unauthorised boxing match, then such encouragement would absolutely be illegal.

"Behead those who insult the prophet"

Can you detect the hidden message there FD? Its "Go forth and find the people responsible for the insulting youtube video, and murder them". Thats what we call incitement to violence. Its slightly different to "ooh yeah - lets have a fair fight between two professional boxers!" wouldn't you say?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 11:28am:

Yadda wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 8:26am: "It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." <----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney. I thought we were over this Yadda.

Not yet.

The declaration by the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community which was in teh Ch7 news item was NOT, NOT, NOT, specific.i

Quote:

The question was, and I think I can quote verbotem from memory: "Do you condemn those images of children holding placards calling for beheadings?" to which he answered: "It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." I have linked you the video of that press conference. There is no ambiguity in that question and answer - none whatsoever.

The line i have strikethrough-ed is NOT heard [is not verbatim] in the Ch7 news item.



Quote:

THESE [below] ARE THE WORDS THAT WERE BROADCAST ON NATIONAL TV IN AUSTRALIA [AFTER MOSLEM PROTESTERS CARRIED PLACARDS IN THE SYDNEY CBD, CALLING FOR THE BEHEADING OF THOSE THAT OFFEND MOSLEMS/INSULT ISLAM]; "It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." <----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney. e.g. The very next statement [by the very same spokesman], for the Sydney moslem community, demonstrates just how ambiguous the statements [that were presented in the Channel 7 video report] from the Sydney moslem community were, regarding the protest 'incident' involving moslems in the Sydney CBD !!; "The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in." That is a very ambiguous statement, to anyone who is familiar with what ISLAM does 'allow' [to be taught to moslem children] ! The moslem woman in the video report, merely states that she wants all of the attention about this incident to go away. YT Muslim leaders 'call for calm'                              goto 1m 40s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyKXA2b9WI4

Q.
What did the spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community actually say ???

A.
"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children               .....in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."



THIS IS WHAT THE AUSTRALIAN MOSLEM COMMUNITY ARE OBLIGATED TO TEACH TO THEIR CHILDREN - "....in a way that ISLAM does believe in"...

n.b.
ISLAM does prohibit believers from expressing love or sincere friendship towards 'disbelievers'.

"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends.....offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1


"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them."
Koran 3.28


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51




THIS IS WHAT THE AUSTRALIAN MOSLEM COMMUNITY ARE OBLIGATED TO TEACH TO THEIR CHILDREN - "....in a way that ISLAM does believe in"...

n.b.
ISLAM does obligate believers to have enmity [hatred] towards 'disbelievers'.

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


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


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


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






TWO YOUTUBES WHERE MOSLEM SPOKESMAN MAKES AMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SYDNEY PROTESTS;

Muslim leaders 'call for calm'[/b]                              goto 1m 40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyKXA2b9WI4


Muslim leaders call for calm [Sydney protests]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Lm4yKsuZs



NEXT TWO, SHOWING THE CONFRONTATIONS BETWEEN POLICE AND MOSLEMS;

Violent Muslim clashes condemned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0pcqHQtQmY


Islam leaders condemn clashes - NO THEY DONT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yALGYapmq9w

This;

"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images."

and this;

"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."


Is just moslem sophistry, imo.


The same spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community could have said something like;

"We, the moslem community, condemn this incitement to murder, by persons purporting to be moslems."

BUT HE DIDN'T.i
Sophistry.


Speaking in the UK, a moslem community leader speaking regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.

"......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians.

Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html



YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Yadda I've already posted the video of the entire press conference. It was in the SMH site, linking a channel 10 video. Not the edited channel 7 video.

Yadda wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

This; "It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images." and this; "The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in." Is just moslem sophistry, imo. The same spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community could have said something like; "We, the moslem community, condemn this incitement to murder, by persons purporting to be moslems." BUT HE DIDN'T.

Here is another YT, which reviews those Sydney CBD protests, where moslems displayed "behead them" placards - listen to moslem comments made in the aftermath of the protests;



"Protest organisers denounced the violence. In particular this image of a young boy supporting beheading...."
[A protest organiser declares;] "What that sign is saying is totally despicable."
"But when we showed that photo at a moslem conference in Bankstown today, only one man agreed to comment;....."
"I CAN TELL YOU, HE KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT HIS RELIGION. AND IS TRYING TO DEFEND [ISLAM] IN A POSITIVE WAY....BECAUSE IT IS NOT DOING ANYTHING IN VIOLENCE, IN THAT. [i.e. the moslem is explaining, that it is not 'violent' for moslems to display placards threatening to behead those who do not believe as moslems believe.]"

Islamic brotherhood behind violence                             goto 1m 05s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IROcJvVCpFU

Yadda wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 11:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 11:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 10:37pm: This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law. I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law? No. The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever? The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect. The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously. That is the topic. Sometimes you are so eloquent, Soren.            :)

So why don’t you post on any topic OTHER THAN Islam?

The old boy is sick of it.

Actually, good luck finding something the old boy isn’t sick of. He hasn’t been himself since the last colonectomy.

Mind you, he’s partial to a nice, freshly-laid turd. If you can dish up one of them you’ll be in his good books. Oh - you already have.

My apologies, Y.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 12:36am:

Yadda wrote on Jun 3rd, 2013 at 8:19pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 11:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 11:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2nd, 2013 at 10:37pm: This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law. I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law? No. The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever? The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect. The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously. That is the topic. Sometimes you are so eloquent, Soren.            :) So why don’t you post on any topic OTHER THAN Islam?

K,

You are mistaken intentionally misrepresenting my posting history on OzPol.

ISLAM is the topic in only 99% of my posts.           :P




Why so [ISLAM] ?

It is so very easy for human beings to make poor choices [e.g. all moslems!].

How can people make good choices, if they are basing their decisions upon lies/mistaken information ?i



Jeremiah 9:3
And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.


John 18:37
......Jesus answered,......To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.





Truth is an irritant, to those who hate it.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

"....lest his deeds should be reproved." ???

Gndalf, you are right that each of the points I raise would make a weak case in isolation, but I am not making them in isolation. Consider the alternatives:

On the one hand we have Gandalf, who is not a lawyer and has no relevant experience, but claims to understand the law after reading a pamphlet on hate crime. According to him it is that simple, and anyone who cheers at a boxing match is breaking the law.

On the other had we have a very long list of contradictory evidence. In the case of the beheading placards:
1) Many people have done this. Not one of them was charged. Gandalf's excuse that the police ignore trivial crimes hardly applies here.
2) Journalists photographed the people holding the placards. The photos were published on the front page of the paper. Still no-one was charged and the police made no effort to do so.
3) One of the 'offenders' handed herself into police. She was still not charged.
4) Despite all the media attention, no-one who is actually in a position to know has stated it is illegal. The politicians who framed the laws have not stated it is illegal. The police and crown prosecutors have not stated that it is illegal, despite issuing public statements about the events and the alleged offender who handed herself in. Many of these people have an incentive to clarify the legality and it simply does not make sense that they would not issue a public statement if it were illegal. If we widen the net, no judicial authority has claimed it is illegal. No legal academics have claimed it is illegal. Not even the journalists covering the stories have claimed it is or even might be illegal.
5) Gandalf cannot produce a single alternative example of someone being charged for this sort of crime.

What does common sense tell you?


Quote:

And who was told that FD? The placard mother? Of course you must have some evidence for such a claim right?

It was in the paper.


Quote:

For all you know she *WAS* given a warning, you don't know do you? I don't know either, but I'm not the one trying to argue what the law says based on nothing but pure speculation as to what happened to her at the police station.

You are basing your position on pure speculation around a hate crime pamphlet you read, and now you think you are a lawyer.

I am basing it on the complete lack of evidence that it is illegal. Not just this particular woman, but every other person whore carried a beheading placard. Beyond that, you cannot produce a single example of anyone being charge for anything similar. If it was illegal and Muslims were blatantly breaking the law and making the front page while doing it, do you really think nothing would happen? Not even a press release from that police warning that it was illegal?


Quote:

I'm making mockery of your claim that someone can only be deemed to be breaking the law if the attending officer(s) decides to proceed with laying charges.

That is not my claim Gandalf.


Quote:

Incitement to violence is illegal. I don't need to be an expert at interpreting statutory law to know thatIncitement to violence is illegal. I don't need to be an expert at interpreting statutory law to know that

Cheering at a boxing match is not illegal. Carrying those placards is not illegal. You should not have to be a lawyer to figure this out, but a bit of common sense would help.


Quote:

Can you detect the hidden message there FD?

LOL, now Gandalf is the one insisting Muslims don't mean what they actually say.


Quote:

Its "Go forth and find the people responsible for the insulting youtube video, and murder them". Thats what we call incitement to violence. Its slightly different to "ooh yeah - lets have a fair fight between two professional boxers!" wouldn't you say?

Of course it is different, but you are the one suggesting there is no room for subtlety. You are the one saying "it is that simple". You are the one who thinks a pamphlet on hate crime tells you all you need to know about the law, and that you can know from merely reading a pamphlet that something is illegal, even though every other piece of evidence you have points the other way.

That pamphlet is not the Koran Gandalf. It does not tell you everything you need to know. You still have to think for yourself.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

On the other had we have a very long list of contradictory evidence.

Not really. None of that evidence contradict my point that charges don't need to be made for something to be illegal. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging this.


freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

Cheering at a boxing match is not illegal.

Don't forget illegal boxing match FD - kind of important that detail. If people are (in your words) "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" at an illegal event, I daresay they are indeed committing a crime.

Quote:

Not really. None of that evidence contradict my point that charges don't need to be made for something to be illegal. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging this.

If people do something many times, and charges are never laid, then it is legal. The law is defined by how it is enforced.


Quote:

Don't forget illegal boxing match FD - kind of important that detail. If people are (in your words) "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" at an illegal event, I daresay they are indeed committing a crime.

Not by virtue of the fact that they are cheering or egging them on.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

If people do something many times, and charges are never laid, then it is legal. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Which of course doesn't apply to this case, since this is the first time in the history of muslim settlement in Australia that muslims have protested with signs calling for people to be beheaded.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Not by virtue of the fact that they are cheering or egging them on.

I would disagree.

Quote:

Which of course doesn't apply to this case, since this is the first time in the history of muslim settlement in Australia that muslims have protested with signs calling for people to be beheaded.

Does the law only apply to Muslims?


Quote:

I would disagree.

So now you think it is illegal to cheer people on who are fighting without official permission?

Gandalf, so far your only argument has been that we cannot interpret the fact that no-one was charged as evidence that something is legal, and your uninformed interpretation of a pamphlet on hate crime. Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Does the law only apply to Muslims?

As usual you make no sense. I'm refuting your claim that these placard offenders were repeat offenders. The fact that this is the very first time in the history of muslim settlement that these placards were brought out, just reinforces my point that its likely that at least part of the reason they weren't charged is because they were first time offenders.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

So now you think it is illegal to cheer people on who are fighting without official permission?

Thats not what I said. What I said was likely illegal was your description of people "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" - in the context of an illegal fighting arena.. I know its a subtle difference, but its an important one.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Gandalf, so far your only argument has been that we cannot interpret the fact that no-one was charged as evidence that something is legal

Not true. I made my case as to why I believe the placards constitute an act of incitement to violence, and therefore illegal. The point about the absense of any charges was merely to refute your absurd claim that no charges definitely means legal activity.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

your uninformed interpretation of a pamphlet on hate crime.

You still haven't explained how my interpretation of the law is uninformed.

Gandalf, I noticed you didn't respond to this bit. Why? Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too?


Is it because there are no examples, ever, of a person being charged for something even remotely similar?


Quote:

As usual you make no sense. I'm refuting your claim that these placard offenders were repeat offenders.

That is not my claim either.


Quote:

The fact that this is the very first time in the history of muslim settlement that these placards were brought out

Yadda used to post nearly identical placards all the time, before the Sydney protests. It's like a Muslim meme.


Quote:

Thats not what I said. What I said was likely illegal was your description of people "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" - in the context of an illegal fighting arena.. I know its a subtle difference, but its an important one.

Please explain the legal distinction. Is this an established legal principle, or just another case of you making crap up and telling everyone that it is the law?


Quote:

You still haven't explained how my interpretation of the law is uninformed.

Yes I have. You are not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. Your interpretation is clumsy at best. You even said it yourself - "it's that simple".

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Gandalf, I noticed you didn't respond to this bit. Why? Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too?

Its likely no one has ever been charged over inciteful placards at a protest in Australia - though there are several examples in the UK. Which is not surprising since the Sydney protest was the first of its kind. Certainly its the first time in the history of muslim settlement (at least that I am aware) that beheading placards were brought out in a public rally.

But of course, as I keep saying, lack of an arrest history doesn't in any way mean the activity is not illegal.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Yadda used to post nearly identical placards all the time, before the Sydney protests. It's like a Muslim meme.

UK protests FD, not Australian.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Please explain the legal distinction. Is this an established legal principle

The point was merely to distinguish between "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" and simply cheering a sport. Of course it may have just been a poor choice of words on your part, but what you said can easily be construed in a way that amounts to incitement as defined by the law. For example "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" could be one person telling one "contestant" that the other contestant is a dirty n***** who wants to rape his mum - and that he should do something about it.


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

or just another case of you making crap up and telling everyone that it is the law?

lol - a bit like you making up stories about someone being laughed at and told to go away by the police - and using that as the basis for saying what she did was legal?

Also, don't confuse what is the law on paper, and how that law is prosecuted in the real world. The former is quite simple, the latter is very complicated. The problem you have is that you have it the wrong way around: you think the legislation is too complicated for any non-legal expert to understand (which is ridiculous), but judging what is and isn't legal is a simple matter of seeing how the law is enforced - which is even more ridiculous. Saying that marching down the street with a placard that instructs others to kill a particular group of people is legal on the basis that no one has been arrested over it yet - is ridiculous. Take these placard bearers to 10 different judges, and you will likely get 10 different verdicts. There are so many factors to consider to determine what verdict is made, and so much is determined by the subjective interpretation of the actual judge (or jury) that presides on that particular day. But even so, on paper, the act itself is a pretty clear cut breach of incitement to violence laws (ie "go forth and kill these particular people").


freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Yes I have. You are not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. Your interpretation is clumsy at best. You even said it yourself - "it's that simple".

Thats not saying anything. At least for the laws we are talking about, it really is that simple.

How, for example, am I wrong about incitement to [illegal] violence being against the law?

Quote:

Its likely no one has ever been charged over inciteful placards at a protest in Australia

What about something similar? SUrely placards are not the only way someone could fall foul of these laws?


Quote:

though there are several examples in the UK

Can you give more information on them?


Quote:

But of course, as I keep saying, lack of an arrest history doesn't in any way mean the activity is not illegal.

If no-one ever gets charged, despite people doing it so openly, then it is legal.


Quote:

The point was merely to distinguish between "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" and simply cheering a sport.

How is this different for a boxing match? Are there different ways to cheer them on, some legal and some illegal?


Quote:

Also, don't confuse what is the law on paper, and how that law is prosecuted in the real world.

That is exactly what you are doing. You have no real world evidence at all that the placards are illegal. All the evidence points to them being legal.


Quote:

The problem you have is that you have it the wrong way around: you think the legislation is too complicated for any non-legal expert to understand

No Gandalf. I think the concepts are too complicated for you to understand. I would expect most people to have grasped them a long time ago.


Quote:

but judging what is and isn't legal is a simple matter of seeing how the law is enforced - which is even more ridiculous

It's a good place to start. You have also failed to produce any "informed opinion" that the placards are illegal. All you have is your own opinion.


Quote:

Take these placard bearers to 10 different judges, and you will likely get 10 different verdicts.

According to you it is all very simple.


Quote:

At least for the laws we are talking about, it really is that simple.

You just finished explaining how complicated it is and how each judge would give a different verdict. Do you think these judges are idiots?

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

According to you it is all very simple.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

You just finished explaining how complicated it is and how each judge would give a different verdict. Do you think these judges are idiots?

FD, I'm afraid I can't help you if (as seems clear) you can't comprehend this simple point I'm making:

- the law *IS* that simple in regards to incitement to violent crime - ie it is illegal. Incitement simply means encouraging others to carry out illegal violence. From this, we can say with 100% certainty, that a publicly displayed sign calling on certain people to be murdered is incitement to violence.

However what *IS NOT* a simple matter, is determining when, where, and in whose hands such a sign can be deemed a breach of the law. This should be an obvious point I would have thought. As the Federal Attorney General's office stated once:


Quote:

‘the crime of incitement was harder to prove because the crime of incitement requires the prosecution to prove not only that the person urged the commission of a criminal offence, but also that the person intended that the crime urged be committed’

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/57ba30f38d3c969cca25710f0023442f/$FILE/Sedition%20FINAL.pdf

bump

Quote:

From this, we can say with 100% certainty, that a publicly displayed sign calling on certain people to be murdered is incitement to violence.

The placards in question did not call for certain people to be murdered. Carrying the placards is not automatically an incitement to violent crime, any more than reading the corresponding extracts from the Koran is an incitement to violent crime. It could merely be an expression of a desire to legally introduce the death penalty fro blasphemy. The context of the protests does not change this, as a person can want to legally execute blasphemers at the same time as others want to break the law.

That is why there is no real world evidence that those placards are illegal. Nor is there any informed legal opinion that they are illegal. There is only your uninformed opinion that they are illegal. Have you changed your mind about that yet?

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

That is why there is no real world evidence that those placards are illegal. Nor is there any informed legal opinion that they are illegal. There is only your uninformed opinion that they are illegal. Have you changed your mind about that yet?

A man was arrested and charged in the UK for holding a placard that read "bring back our soldiers in body bags" - or something to that effect. Now, of course he may only have meant for the relevant government to inact a law that introduce a death penalty for all UK soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. But its not very likely is it? Certainly the British authorities understood that as a clear incitement to (illegal) violence against those soldiers.

Similarly, there is precedent for people who mock the prophet to be under threat from (illegal) vigilante muslim justice - at least one has been murdered already. As soon as the youtube video came out, the maker was subject to specific violent threats against him all over the world. That is the context to the beheading placards in Sydney. Evidently, the police didn't judge it to be a serious enough threat, but it was nontheless a threat to someone's life. Somehow I don't think it was a rational call to introduce a piece of legislation.

Quote:

A man was arrested and charged in the UK for holding a placard that read "bring back our soldiers in body bags" - or something to that effect.

What did it actually say, and what was he charged with?

Do you have any examples to show that it is illegal in Australia?


Quote:

Certainly the British authorities understood that as a clear incitement to (illegal) violence against those soldiers.

I doubt it. The soldiers are overseas.


Quote:

Somehow I don't think it was a rational call to introduce a piece of legislation.

Somehow I doubt that counts as proof that someone has committed a crime. In any case, it does not have to be rational to be legal.

FD:

1. I encourage you to look the British case up yourself if you are really interested. I found it with a simple search, I'm sure you can too. It was from the 2006 cartoon demonstrations.

2. As I already said, there probably is no precedent in Australia - these were after all the first protests of its kind. But that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

OK then, let's broaden it a bit. Are there any precedents under our laws from slightly different contexts? It does not have to be violent Muslim riots, or the use of placards. Your own definition of what is illegal appears to cast an absurdly broad net.

As for the British case, if you don't even know what a person was charged with, how can you justify using it as an example of what is illegal? It is your example, and you are the one claiming things are illegal without any precedent or informed legal advice. I am not going to do your research for you.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

OK then, let's broaden it a bit. Are there any precedents under our laws from slightly different contexts? It does not have to be violent Muslim riots, or the use of placards. Your own definition of what is illegal appears to cast an absurdly broad net.

You're only asking me something that you could easily find out yourself. The Andrew Bolt case, or the Alan Jones "Lebanese grubs" comment might be a good start.


freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

As for the British case, if you don't even know what a person was charged with, how can you justify using it as an example of what is illegal? It is your example, and you are the one claiming things are illegal without any precedent or informed legal advice.

He was charged because he held the inciteful placard - thats the important part. Again, if you are that interested I suggest you look it up yourself.

Quote:

You're only asking me something that you could easily find out yourself.

Correct. It is your evidence. You presented it in support of your argument. I am asking you to show that it is relevant instead of demanding other people do the research when by your own admission you could only be bothered spending a few minutes looking. Does that sound unreasonable to you?


Quote:

He was charged because he held the inciteful placard - thats the important part.

You should let other people decide for themselves what the important part is. In the context of whether a certain action is illegal, I think it is very important what a person is actually charged with, especially given that it is the only example you have come up with, and it is from a foreign legal system. Otherwise you basically don't know what you are talking about and you should stop pretending that you do.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:

I am asking you to show that it is relevant instead of demanding other people do the research when by your own admission you could only be bothered spending a few minutes looking

The research has been done - by me. My evidence is referencing a very verifiable anecdote that anyone can check. Its no different to an academic just leaving a footnote of his source that others can look up themselves - rather than rewriting the entire book for people who can't be bothered to check for themselves.

I gave my reference, and I told you how you can find it. You could take my word for it, or if you have doubts, look it up yourself. tell me FD, is there much difference between me quoting the entire article here, or you typing the keywords I have already given you into google to read the article yourself? For crying out loud, even Yadda has mastered this.

Quote:

Its no different to an academic just leaving a footnote of his source that others can look up themselves

Yes it is different. One is a reasonable and accepted presentation of the evidence. The other is a copout from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Doing the research yourself, then telling others to do the same research all over again is not how it is done Gandalf. You made the clearly false claim that the placards are illegal. You have not presented one example of anyone being charged under our laws for anything even remotely similar. You cannot come up with anything even remotely resembling informed opinion that backs up your view. All you have is one overseas example that you know nothing about.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Doing the research yourself, then telling others to do the same research all over again is not how it is done Gandalf.

Correct - so its a good thing thats not what I'm doing. I've already done the research for you. Here I'll make it even easier for your:

google:
uk man charged incitement placard

You see Gandalf, this is why at the very least you should provide a link, even if you cannot figure out the real reason for the conviction. You have been here long enough to know what standards people expect, and "google it" just shows your evasiveness and hypocrisy. After all it was you who spent about a dozen pages demanding I use proper academic referencing styles etc. Contrary to your assertions, he was not charged for merely holding a placard, and if that was all he had done, he would not have even been charged. There is no need to interpret what he said in the way you need to interpret what was on the placards in Sydney. Even this was a borderline case, as the jury could not reach a decision on incitement to murder last year. This was a retrial.

You cannot find a single Australian example or informed legal opinion that supports your position, and even when you seek foreign examples you need to misrepresent them.

I suggest you stick to the facts, rather than expecting people to accept your version of common sense.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Yes it is different. One is a reasonable and accepted presentation of the evidence. The other is a copout from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Doing the research yourself, then telling others to do the same research all over again is not how it is done Gandalf. You made the clearly false claim that the placards are illegal. You have not presented one example of anyone being charged under our laws for anything even remotely similar. You cannot come up with anything even remotely resembling informed opinion that backs up your view. All you have is one overseas example that you know nothing about.

The reason why people aren't being charged here under our hate laws is because the Coalition watered them down to become ambiguous.  They are so ambiguous they can vary from one jurisdiction to another - so a case can be difficult to pursue.

There is an international law - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which would deem these placards illegal, but then you have to have the knowledge and finances to pursue it through the appropriate channels. I doubt anyone cares that much.

Of course there would be people charged at various times by police and citizens who found the material offensive, but making the charge stick would be very difficult, not only in the UK, but more so in Australia because of the general vagueness of the national laws.

So now the placards are illegal under international law?

Good that you seem to have managed to find the article FD. Hope it wasn't too traumatic for you.


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

Contrary to your assertions, he was not charged for merely holding a placard, and if that was all he had done, he would not have even been charged.

The last claim is completely baseless. The charge is at least partly due to the placard. But I don't really see the difference - all along you have been trying to argue that the act of calling for people to be killed is not illegal - irrespective of whether its by a placard or a megaphone. Ask yourself if you would accept that if the Sydney protestors were holding violent placards as well as calling for beheadings on megaphones - would they breaking the law? - and of course you answer would be no (based on everything you have said before).


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

Even this was a borderline case, as the jury could not reach a decision on incitement to murder last year. This was a retrial.

;D exactly my point.

FD, to bring this back to the Australian case, all I'm trying to point out to you is that this absolutely *IS* a grey area. I'd just like you to drop the absurd line you have been running all thread that marching down the street in a violent protest calling (via placards) for people to be killed is absolutely definitely a legal thing to do - no ifs or buts. Its just ridiculous and untennable.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

So now the placards are illegal under international law?

If someone could be bothered pursuing it - they could certainly mount a case. It's hardly likely that an individual would be targeted, but if there were two opposing factions - religious or political and they had the funds - they could utilise the laws even over something as trivial as carrying ambiguous placards. Of course they would have to believe they had the evidence to prove the intent.

The inference of a charge could easily be used as a threat as well.

Quote:

If someone could be bothered pursuing it - they could certainly mount a case.

Why do you think this mantra?


Quote:

It's hardly likely that an individual would be targeted, but if there were two opposing factions - religious or political and they had the funds - they could utilise the laws even over something as trivial as carrying ambiguous placards.

Are you suggesting there are no opposing factions with an interest in this?


Quote:

The inference of a charge could easily be used as a threat as well.

Do you think someone walking round with a beheading placard is going to be swayed by such a limpwristed threat? 


Quote:

Good that you seem to have managed to find the article FD. Hope it wasn't too traumatic for you.

It is pretty basic courtesy in these sorts of debates to back up your claims Gandalf. I repeat, "google it" is not good enough. I should not have to explain this to you, after you spent a dozen or so pages demanding I adopt rigorous academic referencing standards.


Quote:

The last claim is completely baseless. The charge is at least partly due to the placard.

This is what you said:


Quote:

He was charged because he held the inciteful placard - thats the important part.

This is wrong, and it should not take too much common sense to grasp that.


Quote:

But I don't really see the difference - all along you have been trying to argue that the act of calling for people to be killed is not illegal - irrespective of whether its by a placard or a megaphone.

I have said the placard is not illegal. I don't recall making any such generalisation.


Quote:

Ask yourself if you would accept that if the Sydney protestors were holding violent placards as well as calling for beheadings on megaphones - would they breaking the law?

If what they said on the megaphone was the same as what was on the placard, I don't think that would be breaking the law.


Quote:

FD, to bring this back to the Australian case, all I'm trying to point out to you is that this absolutely *IS* a grey area.

Have you changed your mind again? As far as the placards are concerned, it is not even a grey area.


Quote:

I'd just like you to drop the absurd line you have been running all thread that marching down the street in a violent protest calling (via placards) for people to be killed is absolutely definitely a legal thing to do - no ifs or buts. Its just ridiculous and untennable.

It would be quite simple for you to prove me wrong, if I was wrong. It would be quite simple for you to demonstrate that this is a genuine grey area, if indeed it was. There is only one reasonable conclusion to make from the complete lack of either informed legal opinion or precedent in support of your position, despite the ample opportunity for such evidence to arise.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

This is wrong, and it should not take too much common sense to grasp that.

He was charged at least partly because of the placard, that much is quite obvious from the article. In any case, the entire case against him was over something you are adamant cannot possibly be illegal (ie incitement to violence).


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

I have said the placard is not illegal. I don't recall making any such generalisation.

Well let me remind you:


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating.

- completely laughable,

And:


freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 6:22pm:

As the law currently stands it is legal to walk through Sydney with a bunch of angry, violent, rioting Muslims while carrying a placard calling for people to be beheaded.

Which of course it utterly ridiculous. It *MAY NOT* be deemed illegal depending on the precise circumstances, and the interpretation of the judge (or jury) of the day, but to make a blanket statement like this - that such behaviour can never be illegal is beyond absurd.


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

Have you changed your mind again? As far as the placards are concerned, it is not even a grey area.

Keep digging that hole FD  ;D


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

It would be quite simple for you to prove me wrong

No really it wouldn't Thats been your whole problem this entire thread. In fact you are completely confused - on the one hand you lecture me about how I can't possibly make definite conclusions about what is and isn't allowed under our anti-hate/anti-discrimination laws, saying its so complicated that a mere mortal like me can't possibly interpret it properly (you'll recall your 'pamphlet' meme). Then in the same breath you brazenly declare without any doubt in your mind the inciteful activity of the placard bearers can't possibly be illegal - even without giving any consideration to the specific circumstances. Apparently hate laws are simultaneously far too complicated to understand and so very clear cut and black and white  ;D

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating.

Gandalf, that is not the same thing as saying it cannot possibly be illegal to incite violence. It is not even close.


Quote:

Which of course it utterly ridiculous. It *MAY NOT* be deemed illegal depending on the precise circumstances, and the interpretation of the judge (or jury) of the day, but to make a blanket statement like this - that such behaviour can never be illegal is beyond absurd.

It would only be illegal if the context was that they did something else that was illegal, in which case the illegal act would still not be the carrying of the placard. In the case of Sydney, the protests did turn violent. People acted illegally. Yet the carrying of the placards was not illegal.


Quote:

No really it wouldn't

Yes it would. All you would have to produce is a precedent, or failing that an informed legal opinion, or failing that an uninformed legal opinion that is a bit less uninformed than your own opinion. You have produced nothing but your own opinion, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts you.


Quote:

on the one hand you lecture me about how I can't possibly make definite conclusions about what is and isn't allowed under our anti-hate/anti-discrimination laws

I did not say this. What I said was that your attempts to interpret statutes are absurd - and that is the only "evidence" you have. Again, please stick to what I actually say instead of constantly making stuff up.


Quote:

Then in the same breath you brazenly declare without any doubt in your mind the inciteful activity of the placard bearers can't possibly be illegal - even without giving any consideration to the specific circumstances.

Like I said, if they used the placards to hack someone's head off, that would be illegal.


Quote:

Apparently hate laws are simultaneously far too complicated to understand and so very clear cut and black and white

They are far too complicated for you to understand.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. Gandalf, that is not the same thing as saying it cannot possibly be illegal to incite violence. It is not even close.

If I was someone who had gone around insulting the prophet, I would feel intimidated by the placard.

Either way, its still absurd to claim its not illegal. How the hell can you say intimidation is not illegal, when the Race Discrimination Act specifically mentions intimidation as unlawful? When does the word 'intimidation' not really mean 'intimidation'?? Please explain that one to me FD.


freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Yes it would. All you would have to produce is a precedent, or failing that an informed legal opinion, or failing that an uninformed legal opinion that is a bit less uninformed than your own opinion.

I can tell you without even looking that an "informed opinion" will say that if you feel intimidated/threatened by a person acting violently and making verbal threats, then you quite possibly have a case - and that you should go to the police and they will decide what action, if any should be taken against them. They certainly won't be making blanket statements like "intimidation is not illegal - full stop, don't ask any more questions".


freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

I did not say this. What I said was that your attempts to interpret statutes are absurd

Saying intimidation is not illegal is absurd - as is a blanket statement that displaying a placard that incites violence can never be illegal.

Quote:

How the hell can you say intimidation is not illegal, when the Race Discrimination Act specifically mentions intimidation as unlawful?

It is actually quite easy. On the other hand, trying to interpret the meaning of that statute is rather difficult. What gives it meaning is precedent. Failing that, you could fall back on informed legal opinion. Your interpretation of the statute fails both of those tests, as well as the common sense test.


Quote:

When does the word 'intimidation' not really mean 'intimidation'?? Please explain that one to me FD.

When lawyers use it. That's why you are always advised to get a lawyer Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

What gives it meaning is precedent.

right, so no one has ever been arrested/convicted for intimidation.  ::)

Your position is just becoming more and more absurd - if thats even possible.

Quote:

right, so no one has ever been arrested for intimidation

Ah, so it must be illegal then.

You're the one trying to claim that intimidation can never ever be illegal. Jokes on you.

You have as much trouble understanding what I post as you do with those statutes.

I will say this however, you have not produced a single example of someone being found guilty of intimidation, and you are not going to either.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

You have as much trouble understanding what I post as you do with those statutes

yeah, I guess the statement "It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. " is pretty ambiguous and open to interpretation right FD?  ::)


freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

I will say this however, you have not produced a single example of someone being found guilty of intimidation

Wait, just so we're clear here - you are seriously questioning whether anyone has ever been arrested for intimidating behaviour? Come on, give me a break please.

Gandalf, this is what I am saying:


Quote:

you have not produced a single example of someone being found guilty of intimidation

There are plenty of crimes that are intimidating (eg murder, rape etc), but the people who commit these crimes are not charged with intimidation. They are charged with whatever crime they actually committed.

- people are issued AVOs precisely for intimidation all the time

- people can (and have) been charged or sued for intimidatory behaviour under the anti-discrimination act

- the anti-discrimination act specifically mentions intimidation as an offense.

In short your claim that "it is not illegal to intimidate or be intimidating" is contemptible.

Just retract that, and we might be able to continue this discussion.