http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opera-house-cancels-speech-by-hizb-uttahrir-spokesman-uthman-badar-on-why-honour-killings-are-morally-justified/story-fni0cx4q-1229665416737


A RADICAL Islamic spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings at a cultural festival at The Sydney Opera House.

The event — part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas — was slammed as a cheap stunt that could have put women’s lives at risk.

The furore comes days after Opera Australia sacked a soprano from performing at the Opera House after an anti-gay slur appeared on her Facebook page.



they spread HATE.. even for their brothers...we cannot ignore this..

Like

Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment

Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech.

Abboot, not trusting gays


Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate.

Shut all the radicals up, the imported ones and the home grown ones. It's radicals that cause the trouble on both sides, the rest of us just want to live and let live.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:48am:

Shut all the radicals up, the imported ones and the home grown ones. It's radicals that cause the trouble on both sides, the rest of us just want to live and let live.

So you support 'honour killings'?

Actually, I have been reading this topic this morning.  From abc, it appeared that the person involved did not choose the topic.  The topic was actually chosen for him by... someone.   And that he indicated that his content would not be condoning killing of innocent woman / children. 

I am actually quiet curious on what he have to say, see if he got any bright ideas, rather than quoting passages from the scripture, or blaming everything on local tradition.   When I first read the topic:  Honour Killings Are Morally Justified -  I was think that he may tackle this from these point of view:
- Cultural or religious definition of innocent - there is alot of material that can be covered there.
- Historical context of honour killings Vs what was happening at the time.
- Cultural or religious definition of morality, and its application in modern secular society. 

Its a shame, I really like controversial debates.    :)

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:48am: Shut all the radicals up, the imported ones and the home grown ones. It's radicals that cause the trouble on both sides, the rest of us just want to live and let live. So you support 'honour killings'?

I really don't see any connection between Pansi's comment and your reply.

Nor do I see how you arrived at your conclusion.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

Like Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech. Abboot, not trusting gays Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate.

That isn't hate speech.  Preaching cold blooded murder is.

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:48am: Shut all the radicals up, the imported ones and the home grown ones. It's radicals that cause the trouble on both sides, the rest of us just want to live and let live. So you support 'honour killings'?

Did I say that?

I certainly don't support radicals in any form.

Does that help?

Swagman wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:21am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:36am: Like Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech. Abboot, not trusting gays Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate. That isn't hate speech.  Preaching cold blooded murder is.

Where they
Have you a copy of the speech?


And what of people who publicly talk on the topic of abortion or voluntary euthanasia, isn't that murder to some people so sre these topics potential hate speeches?

When one is "free" to speak only within certain boundaries and "acceptable" guidelines then there is no freedom of speech, by definition.
True freedom of speech is best defined by the old quote.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
(Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
If one refuses to even listen to an opposing view then one is inevitably reduced to acting without full knowledge, and making errors of judgement thereby.

"An event at the Sydney Opera House examining whether honour killings can be morally justified has been cancelled after public outcry.

Sydney-based Muslim speaker Uthman Badar, from Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, was to give the speech, titled 'Honour Killings Are Morally Justified' at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in August.

However, the event sparked an angry response on social media and talkback radio, and drew strong condemnation from two New South Wales Government ministers.

The state's Minister for Women, Pru Goward, and the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Victor Dominello, were both fiercely critical".

link

The damage is already done.

The process of desensitisation to such an idea has already been launched by the very fact the Opera House management gave it respectability by allowing it to be booked in with them.

Contrast this with an opera singer who made a couple of unsympathetic remarks about homosexuals in a Facebook entry that hardly anyone reads, and she gets sacked from holding a performance there.

"Can honor killings be morally justified?" ... They get booked in.

"I don't approve of homosexuals" .......... She gets sacked from an engagement.

tickleandrose wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:09am:

Actually, I have been reading this topic this morning.  From abc, it appeared that the person involved did not choose the topic.  The topic was actually chosen for him by... someone.   And that he indicated that his content would not be condoning killing of innocent woman / children.  I am actually quiet curious on what he have to say, see if he got any bright ideas, rather than quoting passages from the scripture, or blaming everything on local tradition.   When I first read the topic:  Honour Killings Are Morally Justified -  I was think that he may tackle this from these point of view: - Cultural or religious definition of innocent - there is alot of material that can be covered there. - Historical context of honour killings Vs what was happening at the time. - Cultural or religious definition of morality, and its application in modern secular society.  Its a shame, I really like controversial debates.    :)

the trouble is.........as you can see on this thread alone...

not everyone takes what is said in the same way..

for this speech call it what you will... it is usually directed at those with extreme issues...

and can be turned into anything..even if that wasnt the intention.......look at those who are now wearing t/shirts and jackets applauding what is going on overseas.....they hold no fear...yet if someone walked around with a jacket condemning Islam... they would be dead I am sure...

this is where I fear our double standards will come back to bite us...

I am against anyone who bring their cultural hatreds to our shores..

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:39am:

When one is "free" to speak only within certain boundaries and "acceptable" guidelines then there is no freedom of speech, by definition. True freedom of speech is best defined by the old quote. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) If one refuses to even listen to an opposing view then one is inevitably reduced to acting without full knowledge, and making errors of judgement thereby.

it doesnt work both ways though does it..

have you made any comments about ISLAM in the media of late... and had a jihad placed on you...?

thereby lays the difference....

they have got us all scared witless to say anything in public .... AND THEY KNOW IT.

Kat wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:12am:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:57am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:48am: Shut all the radicals up, the imported ones and the home grown ones. It's radicals that cause the trouble on both sides, the rest of us just want to live and let live. So you support 'honour killings'? I really don't see any connection between Pansi's comment and your reply. Nor do I see how you arrived at your conclusion.

Context.

cods wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:56am:

tickleandrose wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:09am: Actually, I have been reading this topic this morning.  From abc, it appeared that the person involved did not choose the topic.  The topic was actually chosen for him by... someone.   And that he indicated that his content would not be condoning killing of innocent woman / children.  I am actually quiet curious on what he have to say, see if he got any bright ideas, rather than quoting passages from the scripture, or blaming everything on local tradition.   When I first read the topic:  Honour Killings Are Morally Justified -  I was think that he may tackle this from these point of view: - Cultural or religious definition of innocent - there is alot of material that can be covered there. - Historical context of honour killings Vs what was happening at the time. - Cultural or religious definition of morality, and its application in modern secular society.  Its a shame, I really like controversial debates.    :) the trouble is.........as you can see on this thread alone... not everyone takes what is said in the same way.. for this speech call it what you will... it is usually directed at those with extreme issues... and can be turned into anything..even if that wasnt the intention.......look at those who are now wearing t/shirts and jackets applauding what is going on overseas.....they hold no fear...yet if someone walked around with a jacket condemning Islam... they would be dead I am sure... this is where I fear our double standards will come back to bite us... I am against anyone who bring their cultural hatreds to our shores..

You mean like the cultural hatred applied to Aboriginals by the british?


Meanwhile Tim Wilson, that hard right human rights commissioner selected by the abbott mob believes in opening everyone up to abuse in the name of human rights.

For once cods, you are out of step with the abbott mob.

statement from the Opera House:


Quote:

"It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss. Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women." Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/festival-of-dangerous-ideas-honour-killings-talk-cancelled-20140624-3arlb.html#ixzz35bIzOvkR

The tele is just flat out lying.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:03am:

cods wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:56am: tickleandrose wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:09am: Actually, I have been reading this topic this morning.  From abc, it appeared that the person involved did not choose the topic.  The topic was actually chosen for him by... someone.   And that he indicated that his content would not be condoning killing of innocent woman / children.  I am actually quiet curious on what he have to say, see if he got any bright ideas, rather than quoting passages from the scripture, or blaming everything on local tradition.   When I first read the topic:  Honour Killings Are Morally Justified -  I was think that he may tackle this from these point of view: - Cultural or religious definition of innocent - there is alot of material that can be covered there. - Historical context of honour killings Vs what was happening at the time. - Cultural or religious definition of morality, and its application in modern secular society.  Its a shame, I really like controversial debates.    :) the trouble is.........as you can see on this thread alone... not everyone takes what is said in the same way.. for this speech call it what you will... it is usually directed at those with extreme issues... and can be turned into anything..even if that wasnt the intention.......look at those who are now wearing t/shirts and jackets applauding what is going on overseas.....they hold no fear...yet if someone walked around with a jacket condemning Islam... they would be dead I am sure... this is where I fear our double standards will come back to bite us... I am against anyone who bring their cultural hatreds to our shores.. You mean like the cultural hatred applied to Aboriginals by the british? WHERE IS THAT HAPPENING... AND WHEN... Meanwhile Tim Wilson, that hard right human rights commissioner selected by the abbott mob believes in opening everyone up to abuse in the name of human rights. For once cods, you are out of step with the abbott mob.

[b]YOU SPREAD HATRED... UGLY[/b]

Well the event was called "The festival of dangerous ideas".

If it was a true academic approach, it is important to understand the motivation and ideas behind something - why they propagate and how they do. If was just a propaganda piece it would be less interesting.

Still, probably should have called the event The festival of slightly controversial ideas if you going to exclude dangerous ideas.

cods wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:03am: cods wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:56am: tickleandrose wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:09am: Actually, I have been reading this topic this morning.  From abc, it appeared that the person involved did not choose the topic.  The topic was actually chosen for him by... someone.   And that he indicated that his content would not be condoning killing of innocent woman / children.  I am actually quiet curious on what he have to say, see if he got any bright ideas, rather than quoting passages from the scripture, or blaming everything on local tradition.   When I first read the topic:  Honour Killings Are Morally Justified -  I was think that he may tackle this from these point of view: - Cultural or religious definition of innocent - there is alot of material that can be covered there. - Historical context of honour killings Vs what was happening at the time. - Cultural or religious definition of morality, and its application in modern secular society.  Its a shame, I really like controversial debates.    :) the trouble is.........as you can see on this thread alone... not everyone takes what is said in the same way.. for this speech call it what you will... it is usually directed at those with extreme issues... and can be turned into anything..even if that wasnt the intention.......look at those who are now wearing t/shirts and jackets applauding what is going on overseas.....they hold no fear...yet if someone walked around with a jacket condemning Islam... they would be dead I am sure... this is where I fear our double standards will come back to bite us... I am against anyone who bring their cultural hatreds to our shores.. You mean like the cultural hatred applied to Aboriginals by the british? WHERE IS THAT HAPPENING... AND WHEN... Meanwhile Tim Wilson, that hard right human rights commissioner selected by the abbott mob believes in opening everyone up to abuse in the name of human rights. For once cods, you are out of step with the abbott mob. [b]YOU SPREAD HATRED... UGLY[/b]

The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture.

How can you attack muslims while ignoring the acts of british christians which were exactly the same

Invade and overthrow.

Live by the sword etc etc


And part two, I repeat the name Tim Wilson, Cod you are out of step with the abbott mob's agenda.

Why does the topic even need to be discussed in Australia?

cods wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 8:39am: When one is "free" to speak only within certain boundaries and "acceptable" guidelines then there is no freedom of speech, by definition. True freedom of speech is best defined by the old quote. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) If one refuses to even listen to an opposing view then one is inevitably reduced to acting without full knowledge, and making errors of judgement thereby. it doesnt work both ways though does it.. have you made any comments about ISLAM in the media of late... and had a jihad placed on you...? thereby lays the difference.... they have got us all scared witless to say anything in public .... AND THEY KNOW IT.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
Just because "they" repress free speech it's OK for us to do so too?
The trick has always been to oppose ones enemies without effectively becoming them, and we appear to be failing that test, unfortunately.

What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified".

Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause.

My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old.

My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'.

Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on.

The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture.

Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time.
If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred.

re Cod


Quote:

the trouble is.........as you can see on this thread alone... not everyone takes what is said in the same way.. for this speech call it what you will... it is usually directed at those with extreme issues... and can be turned into anything..even if that wasnt the intention.......look at those who are now wearing t/shirts and jackets applauding what is going on overseas.....they hold no fear...yet if someone walked around with a jacket condemning Islam... they would be dead I am sure... this is where I fear our double standards will come back to bite us... I am against anyone who bring their cultural hatreds to our shores..

I suppose there are gullible people out there who would believe in anything.  But luckily these people are far and few in between.   Gullible people can be influenced by many things, even violent movies or video games.  So just how far do we go in restriction to prevent this?  I guess, the line had to be drawn somewhere. 

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on.

If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him?

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on.

See this?
THIS is what freedom of speech is really about, The Ancient One has nailed it!
Onya Mate, great post!

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him?

What on earth has THAT got to do with Freedom of SPEECH?  :o

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred.

So all these were mercy killings or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred.

Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples.

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:21am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:19am: OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him? What on earth has THAT got to do with Freedom of SPEECH?  :o

I was responding to the last paragraph of crusty's

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

Why does the topic even need to be discussed in Australia?

Because it is a stereotype that is used to smear Australian muslims on an every day basis. I believe this is precisely what the speaker was going to address.


OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause.

You will be disappointed, as thats not what the speech was about. It was the festival itself that came up with the title, not the speaker. The tele then came up with their blatantly false headline, and the hysteria snowballed from there. As the speaker said in his facebook page, he's being condemned before he has even opened his mouth.

I really hope media watch come down on this like a tonne of bricks next week.

Stratos wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:21am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. So all these were mercy killings or something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

You're apparently allowing your prejudice to blind you. The fact that a tiny few, some of whom were British, committed atrocities in certain places and times, does NOT demonstrate, let alone prove, an attitude held by an entire nation half a planet away from those events.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples.

Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:21am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:19am: OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him? What on earth has THAT got to do with Freedom of SPEECH?  :o I was responding to the last paragraph of crusty's

Nope, no relevancy there at all, he was still discussing SPEECH, nothing else.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:12am: Why does the topic even need to be discussed in Australia? Because it is a stereotype that is used to smear Australian muslims on an every day basis. I believe this is precisely what the speaker was going to address.

Poor old YT gets smeared every bloody day!

Bringing it up like this won't help anyone.....that is already evident. They could have been a bit more circumspect with their discussion topic "titles".

Especially considering "radical islam" is plastered all over the news at the moment.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:12am: Why does the topic even need to be discussed in Australia? Because it is a stereotype that is used to smear Australian muslims on an every day basis. I believe this is precisely what the speaker was going to address. OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. You will be disappointed, as thats not what the speech was about. It was the festival itself that came up with the title, not the speaker. The tele then came up with their blatantly false headline, and the hysteria snowballed from there. As the speaker said in his facebook page, he's being condemned before he has even opened his mouth. I really hope media watch come down on this like a tonne of bricks next week.

Well said, and I too will watch with interest, it's right up their alley, if they ignore this I will be highly disappointed.

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:22am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples. Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid.

There was no pity, it was hatred and thats why aboriginals were massacred on mass, dehumanised, and there culture destroyed.

Something that is still occurring
i.e
Large percent of the aboriginal population jailed
Aboriginal petroglyphs, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula)



It's a similar mindset to the subset of islamic radicals who want infidels deleted.

austranger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:23am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:21am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:19am: OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him? What on earth has THAT got to do with Freedom of SPEECH?  :o I was responding to the last paragraph of crusty's Nope, no relevancy there at all, he was still discussing SPEECH, nothing else.

I will wait for crusty to speak for crusty thanks.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

Where they Have you a copy of the speech?

My comment relates to the OP and 'honour killing'.


____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

And what of people who publicly talk on the topic of abortion or voluntary euthanasia, isn't that murder to some people so sre these topics potential hate speeches?

Perhaps.

Abortion is murder, and proponent speeches in support of it could definitely be viewed as hate speech.

Voluntary euthanasia isn't, unless you are a schizophrenic I suppose...... :D

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:29am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:22am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples. Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid. There was no pity, it was hatred and thats why aboriginals were massacred on mass, dehumanised, and there culture destroyed. Something that is still occurring i.e Large percent of the aboriginal population jailed Aboriginal petroglyphs, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula)

Poor old YT gets smeared every bloody day!


I rest my case......

Did you even know Abo's were still getting massacred on mass!!!

::) ::) ::)

Who is YT Friyay?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:44am:

Who is YT Friyay?

Whitey....

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:39am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:29am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:22am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples. Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid. There was no pity, it was hatred and thats why aboriginals were massacred on mass, dehumanised, and there culture destroyed. Something that is still occurring i.e Large percent of the aboriginal population jailed Aboriginal petroglyphs, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula) Poor old YT gets smeared every bloody day! I rest my case...... Did you even know Abo's were still getting massacred on mass!!! ::) ::) ::)

Check out the difference in life expectancy.

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:29am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:22am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples. Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid. There was no pity, it was hatred and thats why aboriginals were massacred on mass, dehumanised, and there culture destroyed. Something that is still occurring i.e Large percent of the aboriginal population jailed Aboriginal petroglyphs, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula) It's a similar mindset to the subset of islamic radicals who want infidels deleted.

Human Sacrificial Religious Rites are still happening?
Where, precisely?  :D

Take off your bonnet and let that bee loose cobber, you've lost the plot, entirely!

Besides, there are far more urgent conspiracies to fret over...
http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/Carshotts/1400328719227.png

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:42am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:39am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:29am: ____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:22am: austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples. Wrong yet again, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. TN demonstrated colonial expediency, they simply ignored Aboriginal tenure, there was no great emotional content at all in that. At the time there was serious debate as to whether Aborigines were even human, they were considered a curiosity, hence the pity, no hatred there either I'm afraid. There was no pity, it was hatred and thats why aboriginals were massacred on mass, dehumanised, and there culture destroyed. Something that is still occurring i.e Large percent of the aboriginal population jailed Aboriginal petroglyphs, Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula) Poor old YT gets smeared every bloody day! I rest my case...... Did you even know Abo's were still getting massacred on mass!!! ::) ::) ::) Check out the difference in life expectancy.

It's going up isn't it?

Regardless of....

Drinking, Smoking, poor diet, drugs, sexual and physical abuse.

Self massacre....?

But yes, we know, this is all YT's fault.

Formalised systems that include 'honour killings' are outdated and are a throwback to ancient days.  Long overdue for commitment to the rubbish heap of history.

(**hands in Man Card)  They are primarily the province of men and thus are a means of controlling women by fear - crazy sauce when everyone know you control women with money and possession of 'power'...

I can understand a crime of passion... I was watching David Attenbrough's "Life In Cold Blood" last night - those Giant Salamanders sure fight over their territory and their breeding rights... natural instinct...

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him?

The obvious answer is yes because it falls within the meaning of 'self defence'. ;) :)

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

austranger wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:17am: The white australia policy was based on this british hatred of aboriginal culture. Good grief, go and learn some history, the WAP was about immigration, and was "based" in the racial prejudice common across the entire planet at that time. If you could define a common "British" attitude to Aboriginals it would most likely be pity, not hatred. Go back then to the claim of terra nullius from the invading british christians ... british hatred of the aboriginal peoples.

Go back and find out how the superior upper class English treated their own.

The British underclass were locked up for what we might consider 'social injustice' (stealing to survive), they were locked up, starved, herded on to dodgy ships, locked up starved for 6 months, exposed to freezing Antarctic waters and weather for 3 months without adequate protection, dumped on a hostile shore in an unfamiliar foreign land, locked up, starved, flogged, work to death in chains, and if they survived all of this for 7-14 years they were given their freedom in the same hostile land, told fend for themselves and not to re-offend or worst will happen.

Go back and find out how the superior English conquered and colonized Ireland and how they treat their own 'white race', the Irish.

Go back and find out how the superior English enclosed the Highlands and how they treat their own 'white race', the Scot.

And the underclass in the rest of the world were treated no different by the various Aristocrats of the various societies.

It was more about power and economic riches and various Superior Bastards thinking they had the God Given right, support by religious concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings and other social and cultural 'justifications', than it was about Racism as such. Any racism was just an extension of the Superior Bastards mentality.

While you are about it find out how often white settlers and officials actively protected the aboriginals (to their own determent or threat to their own determent) against the excesses of the administration and the selfish Superior Bastards.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 10:04am:

It's going up isn't it? Regardless of.... Drinking, Smoking, poor diet, drugs, sexual and physical abuse. Self massacre....? But yes, we know, this is all YT's fault.

Who elses fault would it be?

Were aborigines doing smoking, drinking, poor diet and drugs (the sexual and physical abuse is up for debate - but certainly not unique to aboriginal society) - before YTs invaded? Answer = no, because they didn't exist in Australia before then.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:19am: OldnCrusty wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:15am: What a typical 'storm in a tea cup'. The speech is titled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" but the stated aim was "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". Personally I would love to hear some one try argue for the positive of "examining whether honour killings can be morally justified". I would dearly love to hear some one cite God as justification for killing another of God's living creatures, in any situation let alone without just cause or any process to establish a just cause. My only rider they can only use provable justification and not rely on any belief system or the unverified words of a 'witness' more than a 1000 years old. My other rider is that the speech is pre published and there is an immediate counter argument allowed without any restriction on the questioning of the 'witness'. Come on fuukwits, bring it on. Give me your justifications that a family member can kill another family member for any reason other than self defense. Bring it on fuukwits, bring it on. If your brother was to enact a terrorism attack that could cost thousands of lives, lets say a dirty bomb, would you kill him if that was the only path to stop him? The obvious answer is yes because it falls within the meaning of 'self defence'. ;) :)

How about a version of this theme ... the bloodline of your tribe is at risk with a member of your family not only choosing to marry outside of your tribe, also outside of your religion.

Viewed from a closed societal mindset, could this be viewed as a form of self defence ... a way of protecting the tribe?

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 9:44am: Who is YT Friyay? Whitey....

As opposed to E

:-?

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 11:57am:

Viewed from a closed societal mindset,

.....false premise, false outcome  ;)

muslims , honour killings .............

____ wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:36am:

Like Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech. Abboot, not trusting gays Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate.

So disagreement is now hate?

Soren wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:36am: Like Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech. Abboot, not trusting gays Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate. So disagreement is now hate?

Anything but total self debasement and appeasment to minorities is hatred according to the left.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 10:04am: It's going up isn't it? Regardless of.... Drinking, Smoking, poor diet, drugs, sexual and physical abuse. Self massacre....? But yes, we know, this is all YT's fault. Who elses fault would it be? Were aborigines doing smoking, drinking, poor diet and drugs (the sexual and physical abuse is up for debate - but certainly not unique to aboriginal society) - before YTs invaded? Answer = no, because they didn't exist in Australia before then.

And we force them to drink, smoke, eat crap and abuse and belt the crap out of each other now do we?

Education didn't exist then either - Ban education for Abo's (not that they go to school anyway)

And medicine? Ban medicine for Abo's?


Time to accept the apology and move on. That will help more of them now than continuing to blame YT.

Soren wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

____ wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:36am: Like Brandis and his occupied East Jerusalem comment Bolt and his fair skin aboriginal hate speech. Abboot, not trusting gays Do you agree with these people's right to preach hate. So disagreement is now hate?

Of course, but then greens wins always draws extremely long bows and the most tangential conclusions in his daily ranting threads.

I am not convinced Bolt wrote a hate piece I suspect the usual greens win hyper bowl but I agree with the intent of Bolts article questioning why people who do not look aboriginal and not suffered discrimination should access the bucket of money intended to ameliorate discrimination suffered because of obvious aboriginality.

If after all you have one aboriginal antecedent from a generation previous it would be more honest to identify as being primarily Scottish or Irish but of course there is no money in that.

Unless of course there is something exceptional in drops of aboriginal blood and they possess a racial memory and mystical connection with the land transferred by genes. Tis almost Tolkienesque myth making. 

cods wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:29am:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opera-house-cancels-speech-by-hizb-uttahrir-spokesman-uthman-badar-on-why-honour-killings-are-morally-justified/story-fni0cx4q-1229665416737 A RADICAL Islamic spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings at a cultural festival at The Sydney Opera House. The event — part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas — was slammed as a cheap stunt that could have put women’s lives at risk. The furore comes days after Opera Australia sacked a soprano from performing at the Opera House after an anti-gay slur appeared on her Facebook page. they spread HATE.. even for their brothers...we cannot ignore this..

I take it that you disagree with George Brandis.....


Quote:

Because’, he says, ‘if you are going to defend freedom of speech, you have to defend the right of people to say things you would devote your political life to opposing. Your good faith is tested by whether or not you would defend the right to free speech of people with whom you profoundly disagree. That’s the test.’

---

How convenient to forget that this was an art festival!  I remember I went to a monologue that led to suicide.  I doubt how this would've been any different.  And lookie, no one committed suicide!  Why?  Because unlike in a church or mosque, artists don't typically "preach" at these things.

Quote:

In a Facebook post, Mr Badar defended himself, saying the suggestion he would advocate for honour killings is ludicrous. He said he wanted to explore the issue and described the public outcry as Islamophobia. His tweeted response to one critic who wrote "Anyone who condones or justifies the murder of defenceless women is a gutless creep", was: "I'm with you on that. Calm down." Shortly before his session was cancelled, Mr Badar blamed anti-Muslim sentiment for fuelling the "hysteria". "I anticipated that secular liberal Islamophobes would come out of every dark corner, foaming at the mouth, furious at why a Muslim 'extremist', from Hizb ut-Tahrir no less, was being allowed a platform at the Sydney Opera House to speak," he wrote in a Facebook post.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/dangerous-ideas-festival-cans-honour-killings-speech-badar/5548006


ey, cods?

Link in the OP now takes you to...


Quote:

Page not found Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:     There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;     There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;     The article was removed to comply with a legal order;     It is an older article that has been removed from the site.

hmmm I'm going with option 3 ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 3:49pm:

Link in the OP now takes you to... Quote: Page not found Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:     There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;     There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;     The article was removed to comply with a legal order;     It is an older article that has been removed from the site. hmmm I'm going with option 3 ;D ;D

Nah. This seems to happen sometimes. Consider your access restored

Kytro wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 4:12pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 3:49pm: Link in the OP now takes you to... Quote: Page not found Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:     There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;     There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;     The article was removed to comply with a legal order;     It is an older article that has been removed from the site. hmmm I'm going with option 3 ;D ;D Nah. This seems to happen sometimes. Consider your access restored

Page not found
Sorry your page could not be found

We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:
•There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;
•There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;
•The article was removed to comply with a legal order;
•It is an older article that has been removed from the site.


NUP !!!!

:)

Lobo wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

Kytro wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 4:12pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 3:49pm: Link in the OP now takes you to... Quote: Page not found Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:     There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;     There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;     The article was removed to comply with a legal order;     It is an older article that has been removed from the site. hmmm I'm going with option 3 ;D ;D Nah. This seems to happen sometimes. Consider your access restored Page not found Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. This is either because: •There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser; •There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published; •The article was removed to comply with a legal order; •It is an older article that has been removed from the site. NUP !!!! :)

Interesting...

I just had it open. Hrmm.

How about Now?

Edit: Nope!

Seems to be a mechanism to stop a paywall bypass.

In that case....top link here

Thanx, Kytro....

Interesting comment from the bloke at the centre of all this.


Quote:

The speaker who was preparing to give a presentation about so-called “honour killings” claimed today that the idea for the speech came from the Opera House.

If this is so, who is it at the Opera House that nominates the questions?

Just asking.......

;)

Kytro wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Interesting... I just had it open. Hrmm. How about Now? Edit: Nope! Seems to be a mechanism to stop a paywall bypass. In that case....top link here

Its an entirely different article. The original article telling lies about "A RADICAL Islamic spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings" has been removed - for obvious reasons.

It would appear that the event's publicist twisted what the guy was actually going to talk about in an attempt to sound a bit more edgy and get a bit of publicity.

I'd say whoever it was, was outstandingly successful.

Then again.... mention "Islam", "Honour Killings".... then throw in a "Jihad" or two and you'll instantly get 9 out of 10 nongs going absolutely batshit anyway.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

It would appear that the event's publicist twisted what the guy was actually going to talk about in an attempt to sound a bit more edgy and get a bit of publicity. I'd say whoever it was, was outstandingly successful. Then again.... mention "Islam", "Honour Killings".... then throw in a "Jihad" or two and you'll instantly get 9 out of 10 nongs going absolutely batshit anyway.

Not without reason, not all of those who profess to be Muslims are of the peace love and mung bean types you would expect them to be from reading the apologists.

Some of them have very different interpretations of Islam which includes a violent enmity toward the west. 

Hizb-ut-Tahrir...  what else would you expect.
Radical loonies.
We should proscribe them like other sane countries.
We should be pro-active and deport them and their followers.

cods wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:29am:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opera-house-cancels-speech-by-hizb-uttahrir-spokesman-uthman-badar-on-why-honour-killings-are-morally-justified/story-fni0cx4q-1229665416737 A RADICAL Islamic spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings at a cultural festival at The Sydney Opera House. The event — part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas — was slammed as a cheap stunt that could have put women’s lives at risk. The furore comes days after Opera Australia sacked a soprano from performing at the Opera House after an anti-gay slur appeared on her Facebook page. they spread HATE.. even for their brothers...we cannot ignore this..

Festival intended to 'provoke thought and discussion'

The Sydney Opera House released a statement saying the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is "a provocation to thought and discussion, rather than simply a provocation"

"It is always a matter of balance and judgement, and in this case a line has been crossed," the statement said.

"It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss.

"Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women."

Mr Badar says he did not choose the title of the speech, but did consent to it. He also said he wanted to discuss a different topic.

"I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism - something like 'The West Needs Saving By Islam' - how's that for dangerous?" Mr Badar said.

"But the organisers insisted on this topic, which I think is still a worthy topic of discussion, for many reasons."

Mr Badar also noted that events at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas are "confronting and provocative".


"In 2011, for instance, Marc Thiessen, former George Bush speechwriter, argued for torture. Last year one of the presentations was entitled 'A Killer Can Be Good'," he said.

"In this respect, my presentation is no different. What is different is that I'm Muslim - one willing to intellectually challenge secular liberal ideology and mainstream values - and that says a lot about the true extent of freedom and equality in modern Western liberal democracies such as Australia"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/dangerous-ideas-festival-cans-honour-killings-speech-badar/5548006

"Dangerous" Ideas are not Lunatic ideas... or ideas against women...  etc.

http://www.islam-watch.org/adrianmorgan/why-hizb-ut-tahrir-not-banned-in-us.htm


Quote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is banned in virtually all Arab nations in the Middle East, such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. It is banned in Tunisia and Libya, and also Turkey. It is regarded as such a threat that it is even banned in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are already cauldrons of extremism. It is banned in all the former Soviet states in Central Asia, and since February 2003 it has been banned in Russia. It has been banned in Germany - on account of its anti-Semitism and its desire to use force for political ends - since March 2003, and it is also banned in the Netherlands. Yet in Britain, the United States, Canada and Australia, the group remains free to operate.   In Britain in August 2005, then-prime minister Tony Blair announced his intentions to ban the group.

Quote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is banned in virtually all Arab nations in the Middle East, such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. It is banned in Tunisia and Libya, and also Turkey. It is regarded as such a threat that it is even banned in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are already cauldrons of extremism. It is banned in all the former Soviet states in Central Asia, and since February 2003 it has been banned in Russia. It has been banned in Germany - on account of its anti-Semitism and its desire to use force for political ends - since March 2003, and it is also banned in the Netherlands. Yet in Britain, the United States, Canada and Australia, the group remains free to operate.   In Britain in August 2005, then-prime minister Tony Blair announced his intentions to ban the group.

Probably because they have done sfa here.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

[color=#ff0000][b]"I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism - something like 'The West Needs Saving By Islam' - how's that for dangerous?" Mr Badar said.

How's that for a lunatic offering to cure the doctor?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

cods wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:29am: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opera-house-cancels-speech-by-hizb-uttahrir-spokesman-uthman-badar-on-why-honour-killings-are-morally-justified/story-fni0cx4q-1229665416737 A RADICAL Islamic spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings at a cultural festival at The Sydney Opera House. The event — part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas — was slammed as a cheap stunt that could have put women’s lives at risk. The furore comes days after Opera Australia sacked a soprano from performing at the Opera House after an anti-gay slur appeared on her Facebook page. they spread HATE.. even for their brothers...we cannot ignore this.. Festival intended to 'provoke thought and discussion' The Sydney Opera House released a statement saying the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is "a provocation to thought and discussion, rather than simply a provocation" "It is always a matter of balance and judgement, and in this case a line has been crossed," the statement said. "It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss. "Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women." Mr Badar says he did not choose the title of the speech, but did consent to it. He also said he wanted to discuss a different topic. "I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism - something like 'The West Needs Saving By Islam' - how's that for dangerous?" Mr Badar said. "But the organisers insisted on this topic, which I think is still a worthy topic of discussion, for many reasons." Mr Badar also noted that events at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas are "confronting and provocative". "In 2011, for instance, Marc Thiessen, former George Bush speechwriter, argued for torture. Last year one of the presentations was entitled 'A Killer Can Be Good'," he said. "In this respect, my presentation is no different. What is different is that I'm Muslim - one willing to intellectually challenge secular liberal ideology and mainstream values - and that says a lot about the true extent of freedom and equality in modern Western liberal democracies such as Australia" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/dangerous-ideas-festival-cans-honour-killings-speech-badar/5548006

I think you need an eye test - the fonts are too big and bold.