If freedom of speech means anything,          it means the freedom to say,

WHAT OTHERS MAY NOT WANT TO HEAR, BEING SAID !



PROPOSITION;
Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is an "insult" to them(1).


Our freedom of speech [and the liberty of the individual!!] would be effectively thwarted,
if our governments will argue that freedom of speech should be restricted/prohibited [i.e. IN LAW], because someone will claim that an [expressed] opinion is an "insult" to them [or to their beliefs].




QUESTION;
Are the elites in the West     intentionally     building and enabling     Politically Correct    dictatorships ?

Dictatorships,          which will be societies of men, where a resident ISLAM, exclusively, will be a philosophy whose teachings will be free to insult, and to express hatred of all others [i.e. hatred of all those who are not moslems]    [i.e. as mainstream ISLAMIC doctrine is want to do!!!],
but at the same time, be societies of men where ISLAM will be ideologically [AND IN LAW] protected from the scrutiny or criticism of all other minds ?

THAT, is an ISLAMIC state!





Quote:

The West's Politically Correct Dictatorship by Giulio Meotti December 6, 2016 ......Under this politically correct dictatorship......freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an "insult."

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9491/politically-correct-dictatorship

Yadda wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 11:16pm:

PROPOSITION; Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is an "insult" to them(1).

Correction/clarification;


PROPOSITION;
In a society which claims to respect the [God given] right of the individual, to [enjoy] freedom and personal liberty;
Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is "insulting" to them(1).

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Yadda wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 11:40pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 11:16pm: PROPOSITION; Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is an "insult" to them(1). Correction/clarification; PROPOSITION; In a society which claims to respect the [God given] right of the individual, to [enjoy] freedom and personal liberty; Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is "insulting" to them(1).

Except holocaust denial.

Unforgiven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 12:50am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 11:40pm: Yadda wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 11:16pm: PROPOSITION; Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is an "insult" to them(1). Correction/clarification; PROPOSITION; In a society which claims to respect the [God given] right of the individual, to [enjoy] freedom and personal liberty; Nobody(1) has the right to seek to restrict or prohibit [i.e. IN LAW] the expression of an opinion [by another person(2)], because they(1) claim, that another person(2) is expressing [e.g. a political] opinion that is "insulting" to them(1). Except holocaust denial.

No.


It is only the mainstream political establishment,         which agrees with such a prohibition in law being applied.
[i.e. it is the leftist mainstream political establishment,         pandering to the 'touchy, feely' crowd,          who want to be 'protected' from feeling offended by the 'offensive' words of others]

If there's one thing I've learned from this debate - its that no one is inhibited by any laws from speaking their mind about Islam or muslims - no matter how offensive.

Yadda could stand in the middle of Pitt St and preach with a megaphone any or all of the diatribe he has spewed on this forum and would receive precisely zero censure from any law officer.

I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:10am:

I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged.

Thank you Belgarion.


Yes.

That is how freedom of speech should be expected to 'operate'.

[....excluding 'freedom of speech' which expresses any clear incitement to violence          i.e. the 'freedom of speech' which we so, so often have seen moslems expressing in public places !!]



And freedom of speech should be reverenced, by those who have it, and by those who enjoy its expression, imo.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:07am:

If there's one thing I've learned from this debate - its that no one is inhibited by any laws from speaking their mind about Islam or muslims - no matter how offensive. Yadda could stand in the middle of Pitt St and preach with a megaphone any or all of the diatribe he has spewed on this forum and would receive precisely zero censure from any law officer.

I really, do not believe that i could, freely make critical comments about ISLAM, in a public place, in Australia.


Why so ?

Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city.

And i believe that the 'lawful' justification would be;

'Making such statements in a public area would endanger public safety'.

Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city.

You are perfectly free to be critical of Islam Yadda, as shock jocks, right wing politicians and neo-nazis demonstrate on a daily basis. What you are not free to do is to intimidate or incite violence. Unfortunately for you the line has been blurred because like minded people have so often coupled verbal assaults with physical assaults. Thus intimidatory verbal assaults on women wearing hijabs by men shouldn't be tolerated if the victim reasonably feels she is in danger of physical assault - as she so often is (ripping of hijab, spitting). But no muslim should (and I don't believe can), be able to gag anyone merely for being "offensive" - without being intimidatory or incitatory. The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:10am:

I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged.

Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 11:57am:

.......The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial.

Which i acknowledge [that it is so].

And i believe that prosecuting such people is wrong,       and that it is contrary to the principle of allowing the expression of 'other/differing views'.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 2:14pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::)

Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 11:57am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:31am: Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city. You are perfectly free to be critical of Islam Yadda, as shock jocks, right wing politicians and neo-nazis demonstrate on a daily basis. What you are not free to do is to intimidate or incite violence. Unfortunately for you the line has been blurred because like minded people have so often coupled verbal assaults with physical assaults. Thus intimidatory verbal assaults on women wearing hijabs by men shouldn't be tolerated if the victim reasonably feels she is in danger of physical assault - as she so often is (ripping of hijab, spitting). But no muslim should (and I don't believe can), be able to gag anyone merely for being "offensive" - without being intimidatory or incitatory. The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial.

Holocaust denial is not a crime in Australia*, nor should it be anywhere else.  ::)

*However the 18C advocates would no doubt see it made so.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Holocaust denial is not a crime in Australia*,

Our first law officer disagrees with you:


Quote:

Asked whether the Toben case might have ended differently under the proposed amendments, Senator Brandis said: “It all depends on the particular facts but, might I remind you, that racial vilification would always capture the concept of Holocaust denial. “For those who are concerned about Holocaust denial, I can’t see how Holocaust denial fails to be racial vilification,” the Attorney-General told ABC Radio.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/george-brandis-rejects-concerns-holocaust-denial-will-become-lawful/news-story/c3fb478da5444cc3fac5741aa0442cf0

By "racial vilification", Brandis is undoubtedly referring to the Racial DIscrimination Act 1975 - which makes racial vilification hate speech a criminal act.

Linking holocaust denial to racial vilification clearly does imply that holocaust denial is a crime.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::)

Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::)

Libel law focuses on whether published statements are true, and in the public interest.

When the former NSW police minister sued Channel 7 for showing footage of him entering a gay sauna, the case revolved around whether this was in the public interest.

Given the truth was established by the footage, Channel 7's defense was that the minister used a government car to get there - hence it was of interest to taxpayers.

This was successful. This was a test case in the Australian media releasing private information about politicians' lives for no other reason than cheap tittle. This happens in the London tabloids all the time. Sex scandals sell their fish and chips. The Australian media, however, has always been a bit more discrete.

Talkback radio spent the next few weeks bleating about a minister using his government car to stop off at a sauna on the way home from work. SHAME LABOR SHAME.

The thrill of the catch, of course, was the minister's latent hommersexuality and his poor, long-suffering wife. A police minister, no less. How could he ever be respected by his boys in blue again?

I don't know anything about criminal libel, Brian. Does it even exist?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can't be stopped from saying it.

Say what you want but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say.

Islam is not a big fan of free speech, neither are many religions. This makes them dangerous.

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 5:15pm:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can't be stopped from saying it. Say what you want but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say. Islam is not a big fan of free speech, neither are many religions. This makes them dangerous.

Neither are many religions.


Quote:

Blasphemy laws are least common in sub-Saharan Africa (four of 48 countries), according to 2014 data. In Europe as well, blasphemy laws are not very common, being found in just seven out of 45 nations (16%). In the Americas, 10 out of 35 countries (29%) had blasphemy laws, including the Bahamas, where the publication or sale of blasphemous material can be punished with up to two years imprisonment. The U.S. does not have any federal blasphemy laws, but as of 2014, several U.S. states – including Massachusetts and Michigan – still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 5:15pm:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can't be stopped from saying it.

That is the exact same 'stance', imo,      that 'full on' Jihadists living in Western nations take.

i.e.
"[At the moment] we can NOT stop you from insulting our religion/prophet/Koran.

But [given a chance] we may choose to kill you just the same, for saying it!"



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469402078/0#0




.




This below, is a fair representation of 'ISLAMIC culture', and, it is a fair representation of the expectations of those who are influenced by 'ISLAMIC culture',       .....describing the innate religious, 'moslem right' [to murder], which the 'activated' moslem will choose to take to himself, 'to defend ISLAM'.

------------ >



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



THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST, 2006, IN LONDON READ.....

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




.




This below, is a fair representation of 'ISLAMIC culture', and, it is a fair representation of the expectations of those who are influenced by 'ISLAMIC culture',       .....describing the innate religious, 'moslem right' [to murder], which the 'activated' moslem will choose to take to himself, 'to defend ISLAM'.

------------ >


IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"

Islamic Protest - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012.





.





Are you [reader] among those who believe that ISLAM, is not a danger to Australia and to every Australian ?

....FOR THE SLOW LEARNERS....WATCH THE WHOLE OF THIS SHORT YT VIDEO

----------- >


Quote:

"You're never too young to be a soldier of Kalifah."

Watch a group of moslem children, being coached by moslem adults, to hate Australia, and Australians,
......HERE, WITHIN AUSTRALIA.       !!!!


------------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E

Karnal wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::) Libel law focuses on whether published statements are true, and in the public interest. When the former NSW police minister sued Channel 7 for showing footage of him entering a gay sauna, the case revolved around whether this was in the public interest. Given the truth was established by the footage, Channel 7's defense was that the minister used a government car to get there - hence it was of interest to taxpayers. This was successful. This was a test case in the Australian media releasing private information about politicians' lives for no other reason than cheap tittle. This happens in the London tabloids all the time. Sex scandals sell their fish and chips. The Australian media, however, has always been a bit more discrete. Talkback radio spent the next few weeks bleating about a minister using his government car to stop off at a sauna on the way home from work. SHAME LABOR SHAME. The thrill of the catch, of course, was the minister's latent hommersexuality and his poor, long-suffering wife. A police minister, no less. How could he ever be respected by his boys in blue again? I don't know anything about criminal libel, Brian. Does it even exist?

More commonly known as criminal defamation...

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 5:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::) Libel law focuses on whether published statements are true, and in the public interest. When the former NSW police minister sued Channel 7 for showing footage of him entering a gay sauna, the case revolved around whether this was in the public interest. Given the truth was established by the footage, Channel 7's defense was that the minister used a government car to get there - hence it was of interest to taxpayers. This was successful. This was a test case in the Australian media releasing private information about politicians' lives for no other reason than cheap tittle. This happens in the London tabloids all the time. Sex scandals sell their fish and chips. The Australian media, however, has always been a bit more discrete. Talkback radio spent the next few weeks bleating about a minister using his government car to stop off at a sauna on the way home from work. SHAME LABOR SHAME. The thrill of the catch, of course, was the minister's latent hommersexuality and his poor, long-suffering wife. A police minister, no less. How could he ever be respected by his boys in blue again? I don't know anything about criminal libel, Brian. Does it even exist? More commonly known as criminal defamation...

Are there any famous cases?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:22pm: Holocaust denial is not a crime in Australia*, Our first law officer disagrees with you: Quote: Asked whether the Toben case might have ended differently under the proposed amendments, Senator Brandis said: “It all depends on the particular facts but, might I remind you, that racial vilification would always capture the concept of Holocaust denial. “For those who are concerned about Holocaust denial, I can’t see how Holocaust denial fails to be racial vilification,” the Attorney-General told ABC Radio. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/george-brandis-rejects-concerns-holocaust-denial-will-become-lawful/news-story/c3fb478da5444cc3fac5741aa0442cf0 By "racial vilification", Brandis is undoubtedly referring to the Racial DIscrimination Act 1975 - which makes racial vilification hate speech a criminal act. Linking holocaust denial to racial vilification clearly does imply that holocaust denial is a crime.

The first law officer is wrong. There is no such crime as holocaust denial in Australia.  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::)

The truth is a legitimate defence in such cases, as is the concept of honest opinion.   Making a statement known to be untrue, or recklessly making a statement without checking its truthfulness is what the libel laws jump on. ::)

Yes, but what about the ridiculous PC brigade, Belgarion? They stop us telling the truth about the inferior tinted races.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::) The truth is a legitimate defence in such cases, as is the concept of honest opinion.   Making a statement known to be untrue, or recklessly making a statement without checking its truthfulness is what the libel laws jump on. ::)

The "truth" is immaterial in such cases, Belgarion.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 11:57am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:31am: Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city. You are perfectly free to be critical of Islam Yadda, as shock jocks, right wing politicians and neo-nazis demonstrate on a daily basis. What you are not free to do is to intimidate or incite violence. Unfortunately for you the line has been blurred because like minded people have so often coupled verbal assaults with physical assaults. Thus intimidatory verbal assaults on women wearing hijabs by men shouldn't be tolerated if the victim reasonably feels she is in danger of physical assault - as she so often is (ripping of hijab, spitting). But no muslim should (and I don't believe can), be able to gag anyone merely for being "offensive" - without being intimidatory or incitatory. The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial.

What if it offends or insults someone?

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:22pm: Holocaust denial is not a crime in Australia*, Our first law officer disagrees with you: Quote: Asked whether the Toben case might have ended differently under the proposed amendments, Senator Brandis said: “It all depends on the particular facts but, might I remind you, that racial vilification would always capture the concept of Holocaust denial. “For those who are concerned about Holocaust denial, I can’t see how Holocaust denial fails to be racial vilification,” the Attorney-General told ABC Radio. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/george-brandis-rejects-concerns-holocaust-denial-will-become-lawful/news-story/c3fb478da5444cc3fac5741aa0442cf0 By "racial vilification", Brandis is undoubtedly referring to the Racial DIscrimination Act 1975 - which makes racial vilification hate speech a criminal act. Linking holocaust denial to racial vilification clearly does imply that holocaust denial is a crime. The first law officer is wrong. There is no such crime as holocaust denial in Australia.  ::)

Ah, now you're being tricky. See no one ever said there was such a crime as holocaust denial. But you are still wrong in your original assertion that holocaust denial is not a crime. As Brandis said, holocaust denial would be considered a form of racial vilification - under the Racial Discrimination Act - and therefore a crime.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 8:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:22pm: Holocaust denial is not a crime in Australia*, Our first law officer disagrees with you: Quote: Asked whether the Toben case might have ended differently under the proposed amendments, Senator Brandis said: “It all depends on the particular facts but, might I remind you, that racial vilification would always capture the concept of Holocaust denial. “For those who are concerned about Holocaust denial, I can’t see how Holocaust denial fails to be racial vilification,” the Attorney-General told ABC Radio. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/george-brandis-rejects-concerns-holocaust-denial-will-become-lawful/news-story/c3fb478da5444cc3fac5741aa0442cf0 By "racial vilification", Brandis is undoubtedly referring to the Racial DIscrimination Act 1975 - which makes racial vilification hate speech a criminal act. Linking holocaust denial to racial vilification clearly does imply that holocaust denial is a crime. The first law officer is wrong. There is no such crime as holocaust denial in Australia.  ::) Ah, now you're being tricky. See no one ever said there was such a crime as holocaust denial. But you are still wrong in your original assertion that holocaust denial is not a crime. As Brandis said, holocaust denial would be considered a form of racial vilification - under the Racial Discrimination Act - and therefore a crime.

That is simply Brandis' opinion, not the law... ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 8:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::) The truth is a legitimate defence in such cases, as is the concept of honest opinion.   Making a statement known to be untrue, or recklessly making a statement without checking its truthfulness is what the libel laws jump on. ::) The "truth" is immaterial in such cases, Belgarion.   ::)

From the Defamation Act 2005 Brian.....

    "The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him."..........


"25 Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."

Not even 100%, true, just substantially true.....

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 11:57am: Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:31am: Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city. You are perfectly free to be critical of Islam Yadda, as shock jocks, right wing politicians and neo-nazis demonstrate on a daily basis. What you are not free to do is to intimidate or incite violence. Unfortunately for you the line has been blurred because like minded people have so often coupled verbal assaults with physical assaults. Thus intimidatory verbal assaults on women wearing hijabs by men shouldn't be tolerated if the victim reasonably feels she is in danger of physical assault - as she so often is (ripping of hijab, spitting). But no muslim should (and I don't believe can), be able to gag anyone merely for being "offensive" - without being intimidatory or incitatory. The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial. What if it offends or insults someone?

I think we can all agree that 18c of the RDA is clumsily worded, as clearly the intent of the law is to protect against racial vilification - and in reality that is the only thing that is ever pursued in regards to this subsection. Someone may "offend" you with his arguments about an ethnicity of which you are a member of - but it may not have been done with the intent to vilify. And the key point is that this sort of "offense" and even "insult" is protected by the provisions in 18d. Thus why Bill Leak has never been gagged via 18c - even though he demonstrably has offended a lot of Aboriginal people.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 8:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 2:14pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. Except according to the laws of Libel, Slander and criminality, right, Belgarion?   ::) Yes  Brian, but you know these laws relate to actual damage to an individuals reputation, they are not intended to be used to silence opinion.  ::) Ah, but if you knew anything about Criminal Libel cases, the truth is immaterial to the outcome, Belgarion.   The damage to their reputation is what matters, no matter if it is the truth or not.    ::) The truth is a legitimate defence in such cases, as is the concept of honest opinion.   Making a statement known to be untrue, or recklessly making a statement without checking its truthfulness is what the libel laws jump on. ::) The "truth" is immaterial in such cases, Belgarion.   ::) From the Defamation Act 2005 Brian.....     "The publication of any false imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family, whether living or dead, by which (a) the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or (b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or (c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him.".......... "25 Defence of justification It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true." Not even 100%, true, just substantially true.....

You are assuming that Criminal Defamation is only covered by Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, Belgarion.

In reality, it is covered by other acts which predate that act, such as in NSW Crimes Act 1900, as well as the uniform Defamation Act 2005.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:51am:

freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 10:01pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 11:57am: Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:31am: Main Street, Australia, is too politically correct, imo,        and i believe that our police 'service' would NOT allow anyone to freely be critical of ISLAM,       .....and to freely make such statements, in any central public space, within an Australian city. You are perfectly free to be critical of Islam Yadda, as shock jocks, right wing politicians and neo-nazis demonstrate on a daily basis. What you are not free to do is to intimidate or incite violence. Unfortunately for you the line has been blurred because like minded people have so often coupled verbal assaults with physical assaults. Thus intimidatory verbal assaults on women wearing hijabs by men shouldn't be tolerated if the victim reasonably feels she is in danger of physical assault - as she so often is (ripping of hijab, spitting). But no muslim should (and I don't believe can), be able to gag anyone merely for being "offensive" - without being intimidatory or incitatory. The only intellectual debate Australians (and much of the west) are specifically banned from is advocating holocaust denial. What if it offends or insults someone? I think we can all agree that 18c of the RDA is clumsily worded, as clearly the intent of the law is to protect against racial vilification - and in reality that is the only thing that is ever pursued in regards to this subsection. Someone may "offend" you with his arguments about an ethnicity of which you are a member of - but it may not have been done with the intent to vilify. And the key point is that this sort of "offense" and even "insult" is protected by the provisions in 18d. Thus why Bill Leak has never been gagged via 18c - even though he demonstrably has offended a lot of Aboriginal people.

So how is it that Toben was not protected by 18d, cii? Did they put him in jail for being unfair, or for not believing what he said?

Evidently holocaust denial is a special category. According to Brandis, its straight away deemed to be racial vilification - no ifs or buts apparently.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

You are assuming that Criminal Defamation is only covered by Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, Belgarion. In reality, it is covered by other acts which predate that act, such as in NSW Crimes Act 1900, as well as the uniform Defamation Act 2005.   ::)

"DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - LONG TITLE

An Act to enact in New South Wales provisions to promote uniform laws of defamation in Australia; to repeal the Defamation Act 1974 ; to amend the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to criminal defamation;

The new act trumps everything else Brian....  ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 7:01pm:

Evidently holocaust denial is a special category. According to Brandis, its straight away deemed to be racial vilification - no ifs or buts apparently.

Do you think Brandis may be driven by political motives?

I'd ask FD, but he won't say.

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8th, 2016 at 7:01pm: Evidently holocaust denial is a special category. According to Brandis, its straight away deemed to be racial vilification - no ifs or buts apparently. Do you think Brandis may be driven by political motives? I'd ask FD, but he won't say.

I think the entire 'holocaust-denial industry' is driven by political motives, and thats the whole issue here. Make a public speech in Australia arguing that the Armenian genocide never happened - and watch what happens - nothing. Do the same for the holocaust and there will be political forces coming down on you like a tonne of bricks - with the RDA in hand. There are powerful and well funded pro-Israel lobbies constantly pushing this agenda, and both major parties are deeply in bed with them. Like I said, its become a special category - and its precisely because of political motives.

Do the people who would make holocaust denial a crime not see that they are playing directly into the deniers hands?  Instead of having these claims out in the open where they can be criticised, the deniers can then say 'The government is trying to shut me up, therefore I must be onto something!' and then someone will begin to listen...

This applies to every attempt to censor free speech. Far better to have everything out in the open where it can be examined than driven underground to attract a credulous audience.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:34am:

Do the people who would make holocaust denial a crime not see that they are playing directly into the deniers hands?  Instead of having these claims out in the open where they can be criticised, the deniers can then say 'The government is trying to shut me up, therefore I must be onto something!' and then someone will begin to listen... This applies to every attempt to censor free speech. Far better to have everything out in the open where it can be examined than driven underground to attract a credulous audience.

I used to wonder this too Belgarion, but lets face it - holocaust denial hasn't become any more credible in society because of these gags. The Frederic Toben's and David Irvings haven't become martyrs of free speech despite both being gaoled for what they have said and written. And lets not be naive and ignore the incredibly effective propaganda machine behind the holocaust industry. The fact that Brandis can boldly come out and say straight up that holocaust denial is automatically equivalent to racial vilification - without even raising eyebrows says it all really. We've all bought into it, we've become conditioned to think that gagging holocaust denial is an acceptable course of action - despite otherwise passionately defending free speech. And its even worse in Europe - understandably so since thats where it all happened. I never could get over the sheer brazen absurdity of French politicians walking hand in hand down the street in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the attack on their freedom - while at the very same time a French anti-semite was getting his door kicked down by police over some nasty words he said about jews on facebook. I kid you not, this really happened, look it up.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:34am:

Do the people who would make holocaust denial a crime             not see that they are playing directly into the deniers hands? Instead of having these claims out in the open where they can be criticised, the deniers can then say 'The government is trying to shut me up, therefore I must be onto something!' and then someone will begin to listen... This applies to every attempt to censor free speech. Far better to have everything out in the open where it can be examined                than driven underground to attract a credulous audience.

Belgarion,

Exactly.

Well said.

A disclaimer to what I just wrote about how gagging "works" in terms of not making Toben and Irving martyrs. Where that doesn't apply is outside the west, particular in the muslim world where holocaust denial is high to the point (in some places) of being socially acceptable. But this is merely an extension of the cultural-political war between the muslim world and the western world - centering on the legitimacy of Israel. Where the 'holocaust industry' and all the associated propaganda and intellectual intolerance that goes with it merely reinforces their perception of the hypocricy and sinister motives of the west in oppressing the muslim world.

And so one could say that its the muslim world that represents your "underground" where western belligerance against holocaust denial has created that "credulous audience".

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

A disclaimer to what I just wrote about how gagging "works" in terms of not making Toben and Irving martyrs. Where that doesn't apply is outside the west, particular in the muslim world where holocaust denial is high to the point (in some places) of being socially acceptable. But this is merely an extension of the cultural-political war between the muslim world and the western world - centering on the legitimacy of Israel. Where the 'holocaust industry' and all the associated propaganda and intellectual intolerance that goes with it merely reinforces their perception of the hypocricy and sinister motives of the west in oppressing the muslim world. And so one could say that its the muslim world that represents your "underground" where western belligerance against holocaust denial has created that "credulous audience".

gandalf,

You would seem to be suggesting,               that if only there was no state of Israel, there would be no need found among moslems, for enmity and hatred, towards persons who are not moslems [because of the Wests support of the Jewish state] ?

But gandalf, isn't it true, that the moslem hatred for Jews [and other persons who are not moslems] is secure and well founded within the legitimate doctrines ISLAM ?

i.e.
gandalf, isn't it true that;

EVEN IF THE STATE ISRAEL DID NOT EXIST,         .......that there still exists within the legitimate doctrines ISLAM,           a complete religious justification for moslem hatred,          for Jews [and for all other persons who are not moslems] ?




"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers              wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."
Koran 5.82


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8th, 2016 at 7:01pm: Evidently holocaust denial is a special category. According to Brandis, its straight away deemed to be racial vilification - no ifs or buts apparently. Do you think Brandis may be driven by political motives? I'd ask FD, but he won't say.

Abbott dropped the revision or repeal of 18c due to pressure from Jewish groups.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8th, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8th, 2016 at 7:01pm: Evidently holocaust denial is a special category. According to Brandis, its straight away deemed to be racial vilification - no ifs or buts apparently. Do you think Brandis may be driven by political motives? I'd ask FD, but he won't say. Abbott dropped the revision or repeal of 18c due to pressure from Jewish groups.

Ah yes. We grew here they flew here, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 8:23am:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 7:34am: Do the people who would make holocaust denial a crime not see that they are playing directly into the deniers hands?  Instead of having these claims out in the open where they can be criticised, the deniers can then say 'The government is trying to shut me up, therefore I must be onto something!' and then someone will begin to listen... This applies to every attempt to censor free speech. Far better to have everything out in the open where it can be examined than driven underground to attract a credulous audience. I used to wonder this too Belgarion, but lets face it - holocaust denial hasn't become any more credible in society because of these gags. The Frederic Toben's and David Irvings haven't become martyrs of free speech despite both being gaoled for what they have said and written. And lets not be naive and ignore the incredibly effective propaganda machine behind the holocaust industry. The fact that Brandis can boldly come out and say straight up that holocaust denial is automatically equivalent to racial vilification - without even raising eyebrows says it all really. We've all bought into it, we've become conditioned to think that gagging holocaust denial is an acceptable course of action - despite otherwise passionately defending free speech. And its even worse in Europe - understandably so since thats where it all happened. I never could get over the sheer brazen absurdity of French politicians walking hand in hand down the street in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the attack on their freedom - while at the very same time a French anti-semite was getting his door kicked down by police over some nasty words he said about jews on facebook. I kid you not, this really happened, look it up.

We wouldn't know who Toben was if not for the fact he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It took them about ten years to do it, and he milked it for free publicity the whole way. It doesn't resonate with most Australians because of the message itself (and we are not compelled by our religion to think up reasons to continue slaughtering Jews, just like Muhammed did). 18c has helped Toben overcome the difficulties of getting holocaust denial back into the public debate.

I also think the Islamic victimhood industry is just as much to blame for the current state of affairs. A classic example of this is Gandalf's insistence that all Islamophobia is based on racism.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 8:23am: Belgarion wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 7:34am: Do the people who would make holocaust denial a crime not see that they are playing directly into the deniers hands?  Instead of having these claims out in the open where they can be criticised, the deniers can then say 'The government is trying to shut me up, therefore I must be onto something!' and then someone will begin to listen... This applies to every attempt to censor free speech. Far better to have everything out in the open where it can be examined than driven underground to attract a credulous audience. I used to wonder this too Belgarion, but lets face it - holocaust denial hasn't become any more credible in society because of these gags. The Frederic Toben's and David Irvings haven't become martyrs of free speech despite both being gaoled for what they have said and written. And lets not be naive and ignore the incredibly effective propaganda machine behind the holocaust industry. The fact that Brandis can boldly come out and say straight up that holocaust denial is automatically equivalent to racial vilification - without even raising eyebrows says it all really. We've all bought into it, we've become conditioned to think that gagging holocaust denial is an acceptable course of action - despite otherwise passionately defending free speech. And its even worse in Europe - understandably so since thats where it all happened. I never could get over the sheer brazen absurdity of French politicians walking hand in hand down the street in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the attack on their freedom - while at the very same time a French anti-semite was getting his door kicked down by police over some nasty words he said about jews on facebook. I kid you not, this really happened, look it up. We wouldn't know who Toben was if not for the fact he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It took them about ten years to do it, and he milked it for free publicity the whole way. It doesn't resonate with most Australians because of the message itself (and we are not compelled by our religion to think up reasons to continue slaughtering Jews, just like Muhammed did). 18c has helped Toben overcome the difficulties of getting holocaust denial back into the public debate. I also think the Islamic victimhood industry is just as much to blame for the current state of affairs. A classic example of this is Gandalf's insistence that all Islamophobia is based on racism.

G has said no such thing, FD. He insists that legitimate criticism of Islam is fair and proper.

I, on the other hand, insist that all Islamophobia is racism. Islamophobia is based on the term, xenophobia. It most certainly is based on racism.

A case in point: your insistence that Islam is the result of Arab inbreeding. You also assert that Arab interbreeding with negroid sub-races is "a plausible theory". Not only this, you claim that Islam is an attack on the "freedoms of white people everywhere".

Islamophobia is clearly based on racism, FD. And no one has shown this more than your good self.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

We wouldn't know who Toben was if not for the fact he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It took them about ten years to do it, and he milked it for free publicity the whole way. It doesn't resonate with most Australians because of the message itself (and we are not compelled by our religion to think up reasons to continue slaughtering Jews, just like Muhammed did). 18c has helped Toben overcome the difficulties of getting holocaust denial back into the public debate.

And yet holocaust denial is not "back in the public debate". Its just as frowned upon now as it was before Toben opened his bigoted mouth - probably more so. The fact that Toben has been heard of in some circles doesn't change this in any way shape or form.


freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

I also think the Islamic victimhood industry is just as much to blame for the current state of affairs. A classic example of this is Gandalf's insistence that all Islamophobia is based on racism.

Islamophobia is by its definition an irrational fear or hate of Islam. I can't think of any other reason to have such fear or hate other than racism. If you prefer to talk about rational reasons to fear Islam, then by all means. But that is not Islamophobia.

Can you suggest any other irrational reasons to fear/hate Islam besides racism FD?

I suspect that what you really mean is that there is no such thing as an "irrational" fear of Islam - yes?

Karnal wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

A case in point: your insistence that Islam is the result of Arab inbreeding. You also assert that Arab interbreeding with negroid sub-races is "a plausible theory". Not only this, you claim that Islam is an attack on the "freedoms of white people everywhere".

FD can't work out why moses' statement that the entire male population of muslims are mentally retarded psychopaths who are so filthy they squat to pee - could ever be racism. But he does see it as sexism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 3:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 1:20pm: A case in point: your insistence that Islam is the result of Arab inbreeding. You also assert that Arab interbreeding with negroid sub-races is "a plausible theory". Not only this, you claim that Islam is an attack on the "freedoms of white people everywhere". FD can't work out why moses' statement that the entire male population of muslims are mentally retarded psychopaths who are so filthy they squat to pee - could ever be racism. But he does see it as sexism.

Ah yes. Then there's FD's refusal to comment on Trump for the obvious reason that he supports Trump's Islamophobia, but doesn't want to be seen as wacist.

I could be wrong, of course, but FD's too busy discussing sustainable fishing and carbon taxes, so I guess we'll never know.

Karnal wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

FD's too busy discussing sustainable fishing and carbon taxes

;D ;D

Quote:

G has said no such thing, FD.

That is exactly what he said


Quote:

Islamophobia is based on the term, xenophobia. It most certainly is based on racism.

University of bologne, isn't it?


Quote:

And yet holocaust denial is not "back in the public debate".

Are we not members of the public? What do you think we are doing?


Quote:

Its just as frowned upon now as it was before Toben opened his bigoted mouth - probably more so.

And now we are actually doing the frowning, whereas before it was more of a theoretical frown.


Quote:

The fact that Toben has been heard of in some circles doesn't change this in any way shape or form.

it means he has been heard of, which is better than what he had before he was dragged through the courts. He is exactly what you insist he isn't -  martyr for freedom of speech.


Quote:

Islamophobia is by its definition an irrational fear or hate of Islam.

ie, not a race


Quote:

I can't think of any other reason to have such fear or hate other than racism.

Ah, so irrational fears now require a reason for having them? Thanks for explaining Gandalf.


Quote:

FD can't work out why moses' statement that the entire male population of muslims are mentally retarded psychopaths who are so filthy they squat to pee - could ever be racism.

It is sexism, not racism. Islam is not a race. This is exaclty the sort of muddle headed thinking that lead us down the 18c path. Everything bad is racism, so lets ban everything we disagree with....

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Quote: G has said no such thing, FD. That is exactly what he said [quote]Islamophobia is based on the term, xenophobia. It most certainly is based on racism.

University of bologne, isn't it?


Quote:

And yet holocaust denial is not "back in the public debate".

Are we not members of the public? What do you think we are doing?


Quote:

Its just as frowned upon now as it was before Toben opened his bigoted mouth - probably more so.

And now we are actually doing the frowning, whereas before it was more of a theoretical frown.


Quote:

The fact that Toben has been heard of in some circles doesn't change this in any way shape or form.

it means he has been heard of, which is better than what he had before he was dragged through the courts. He is exactly what you insist he isn't -  martyr for freedom of speech.


Quote:

Islamophobia is by its definition an irrational fear or hate of Islam.

ie, not a race


Quote:

I can't think of any other reason to have such fear or hate other than racism.

Ah, so irrational fears now require a reason for having them? Thanks for explaining Gandalf.


Quote:

FD can't work out why moses' statement that the entire male population of muslims are mentally retarded psychopaths who are so filthy they squat to pee - could ever be racism.

It is sexism, not racism. Islam is not a race. This is exaclty the sort of muddle headed thinking that lead us down the 18c path. Everything bad is racism, so lets ban everything we disagree with....[/quote]

That's right. Interbreeding with the inferior races is sexism too.

But I'm curious. Why don't you like to mention the president-erect of the Freeeedom-loving US of A? Are you superstitious?

Have no fear, FD. I've said his name a few times and I'm okay - touch wood.

Trump hates Negroids, Mexicans, Muselmen - you name it.

None of it's racist, of course. It's just about standing up for the Freeedom of decent white people everywhere, no?

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

It is sexism, not racism. Islam is not a race. This is exaclty the sort of muddle headed thinking that lead us down the 18c path.

Right. So you don't think that moses' depiction of the entire male muslim population as an inferior genetic sub-class "racialises" muslims? Isn't your contention that Islamophobia can never be racism based solely on how you perceive race and racism - and not how other people like moses perceive them? How about the idea that muslims today have a lower IQ because of their history of interbreeding with genetically inferior negroid races - something you described as a "plausible theory"?

Quote:

Right. So you don't think that moses' depiction of the entire male muslim population as an inferior genetic sub-class "racialises" muslims?

I've seen you use this term before Gandalf - "racialising" criticism of Islam. It is still not a race.


Quote:

How about the idea that muslims today have a lower IQ because of their history of interbreeding with genetically inferior negroid races - something you described as a "plausible theory"?

Do you think inbreeding among middle eastern Muslims is a serious issue that affects their IQ? I believe you tried to deny the link between IQ and inbreeding in the past. Is it racist to talk about it? Should we put Moses in jail?

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Quote: Right. So you don't think that moses' depiction of the entire male muslim population as an inferior genetic sub-class "racialises" muslims? I've seen you use this term before Gandalf - "racialising" criticism of Islam. It is still not a race. [quote]How about the idea that muslims today have a lower IQ because of their history of interbreeding with genetically inferior negroid races - something you described as a "plausible theory"?

Do you think inbreeding among middle eastern Muslims is a serious issue that affects their IQ? I believe you tried to deny the link between IQ and inbreeding in the past. Is it racist to talk about it? Should we put Moses in jail?[/quote]

You go first, FD.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

I've seen you use this term before Gandalf - "racialising" criticism of Islam. It is still not a race.

Racists racialise muslims, and are prejudiced against them on racist grounds. And there's no clearer example of this than Moses's diatribe about 100% of muslims belonging to an inferior genetic sub-class of humans. If you want to cover your eyes and your ears and pretend this isn't a well established fact, then there's not much I can say to convince you. Nor is there much point directing you to the literature that demonstrates this - as I have done previously. And by the way the fact that Islam is not a race does not change this one iota.


freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Do you think inbreeding among middle eastern Muslims is a serious issue that affects their IQ?

Yes. But I'll remind you yet again that this is not what you considered a "plausible theory". That was in reference to a well known racist's argument that the low IQ of muslims was more to do with them coming into contact with the "inferior" genes of the negroids of Africa. In fact he dismissed the inbreeding theory.

Quote:

Racists racialise muslims, and are prejudiced against them on racist grounds. And there's no clearer example of this than Moses's diatribe about 100% of muslims belonging to an inferior genetic sub-class of humans.

If he specifically refers to 100% of them, he cannot be referring to a race, can he?


Quote:

Yes. But I'll remind you yet again that this is not what you considered a "plausible theory".

Thanks Gandalf. It's reassuring to go back over familiar territory of you correcting me on my own opinion.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

If he specifically refers to 100% of them, he cannot be referring to a race, can he?

100% of muslims are an inferior genetic sub-species - aka "race" gettit?

Racists always speak in sweeping absolutes, its probably their most defining characteristic.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

Quote: Racists racialise muslims, and are prejudiced against them on racist grounds. And there's no clearer example of this than Moses's diatribe about 100% of muslims belonging to an inferior genetic sub-class of humans. If he specifically refers to 100% of them, he cannot be referring to a race, can he? [quote]Yes. But I'll remind you yet again that this is not what you considered a "plausible theory".

Thanks Gandalf. It's reassuring to go back over familiar territory of you correcting me on my own opinion.[/quote]

A plausible theory.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 12^th, 2016 at 6:41am:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 7:42pm: If he specifically refers to 100% of them, he cannot be referring to a race, can he? 100% of muslims are an inferior genetic sub-species - aka "race" gettit? Racists always speak in sweeping absolutes, its probably their most defining characteristic.

Can you quote him referring to a sub-species Gandalf? Or are you just changing what he said until you get the outcome you want?

Sounds to me like you are the one using sweeping absolutes. Islamophobia is always based on racism, because irrational fears can be pinned down with rational deduction, right? Therefor, you are a racist. FTW.

Did you make a submission on 18c?

Now he's apologising for them.

Must be a plausible theory.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2016 at 6:51pm:

Can you quote him referring to a sub-species Gandalf?

sure...


Quote:

The result to day is that if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate, murdering people to emulate muhammad.

100% of muslims are of low intellect - as a result of inbreeding. This is what we call a genetic "sub species". Aren't you the one who's constantly appealing to common sense?

But here moses is engaging in the old style racism - literal "races" - in terms of genetics and breeding. Modern day racism is usually more subtle, and instead take a given attribute for a given "other" - say Islam - and racialise it. And by "racialise" I don't mean that they convince themselves they are literally a "race" as in old-school genetics and breeding. But rather take the physical and behavioural attributes of the other (some may include genetic attributes like skin colour, but others don't such as the hijab) , and develop their irrational prejudice against the group in the same way as old-school racists did in terms of the "othering" process.

So take me for example. I'm not from the middle east, and none of my ancestors are inbred. Yet moses insists I am - simply because he sees a stereotype called "muslim", not an individual. And thats what racists do FD - they see the people they are racist against as a monolith, not as individual human beings - whats known in this field as "outgroup homogeneity" - an "other" that is absolute and which they can use to project their hate and prejudices.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 6:51pm: Can you quote him referring to a sub-species Gandalf? sure... Quote: The result to day is that if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate, murdering people to emulate muhammad. 100% of muslims are of low intellect - as a result of inbreeding. This is what we call a genetic "sub species". Aren't you the one who's constantly appealing to common sense? But here moses is engaging in the old style racism - literal "races" - in terms of genetics and breeding. Modern day racism is usually more subtle, and instead take a given attribute for a given "other" - say Islam - and racialise it. And by "racialise" I don't mean that they convince themselves they are literally a "race" as in old-school genetics and breeding. But rather take the physical and behavioural attributes of the other (some may include genetic attributes like skin colour, but others don't such as the hijab) , and develop their irrational prejudice against the group in the same way as old-school racists did in terms of the "othering" process. So take me for example. I'm not from the middle east, and none of my ancestors are inbred. Yet moses insists I am - simply because he sees a stereotype called "muslim", not an individual. And thats what racists do FD - they see the people they are racist against as a monolith, not as individual human beings - whats known in this field as "outgroup homogeneity" - an "other" that is absolute and which they can use to project their hate and prejudices.

Maybe if we didn't have Muslim radicals mucking up in Australia people would have more of a fondness for Islam. Comments like that are emotive. Not factual. He's pissed off and as a result it's a broad statement.

correct hammer - it was a broad, emotive non-factual comment from a "pissed off" person about a particular ethno-religious group - also known as racism.

And excusing racism because muslim terrorists and extremists exist is not the solution. Thats what we call spineless apologism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

correct hammer - it was a broad, emotive non-factual comment from a "pissed off" person about a particular ethno-religious group - also known as racism. And excusing racism because muslim terrorists and extremists exist is not the solution. Thats what we call spineless apologism.

No, G, we call this Freeeeedom. It's spineless apologism when you mention other extremists when there are Muslim terrorists/extremists/child brides out there.

It's only racism when the Muselman tries to take away the Freeeeedom of decent white people. You can say what you like about the tinted races because they're not a race. It has to be something mean, of course. Say something nice, and you're a bigot - the soft bigotry of low expectations.

This makes you a race traitor, and far worse than the tinted races. Race traitors will eventually be lined up and shot, or rounded up and gassed - in the fullness of time.

If you're under any doubt, remember: if the tinted races say it, it's wacism. If decent white people say it, it's Freeeeedom.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 6:51pm: Can you quote him referring to a sub-species Gandalf? sure... Quote: The result to day is that if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate, murdering people to emulate muhammad. 100% of muslims are of low intellect - as a result of inbreeding. This is what we call a genetic "sub species".

No it isn't Gandalf. You were deliberately misquoting him in order to paint him as a racist. You base your entire argument on sweeping generalisations. You are adopting one of the diagnostic criteria that your yourself put forward for identifying racists.


Quote:

Aren't you the one who's constantly appealing to common sense?

Sure. Common sense dictates that specifically referencing 100% of Muslims excludes a racial angle.


Quote:

But here moses is engaging in the old style racism - literal "races" - in terms of genetics and breeding.

Again, now he is not. If he did so elsewhere, quote him. Inbred is not a race. Stupid is not a race. Islam is not a race. Men are not a race. The only thing that could be interpreted as a race is what you falsely attributed to him - a sub species.

This is the inevitable result of your muddle-headed "all Islamophobia is based on racism BS". Is that that sort of BS that gave us 18c and put people in jail for having the wrong opinion. You constantly attempt to racialise criticism of Islam in order to deflect from the real and verifiable criticism of Islam. There is a terrible problem with inbreeding where Islam has been around for the longest, yet all you can do is cry wacist!


Quote:

Modern day racism is usually more subtle

To the point that it does not exist? I would say the opposite - people go out of their way to give a scientific basis to racism.


Quote:

and instead take a given attribute for a given "other" - say Islam - and racialise it.

You racialise it in order to prop up the Islamic victimhood industry and avoid genuinely addressing the issues facing Islam.


Quote:

And by "racialise" I don't mean that they convince themselves they are literally a "race" as in old-school genetics and breeding. But rather take the physical and behavioural attributes of the other (some may include genetic attributes like skin colour, but others don't such as the hijab) , and develop their irrational prejudice against the group in the same way as old-school racists did in terms of the "othering" process.

Cousin rooting terrorists? Oh no, that's wacist!


Quote:

So take me for example. I'm not from the middle east, and none of my ancestors are inbred.

BS.

You don't think a Negroid sub-species is racist?

We understand, FD. You're now so full-blown you've forgotten what racism is.

Sorry, wacism.

The real victim here is the 2007-FD. We all feel for him, you know.

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

You base your entire argument on sweeping generalisations.

Correct - moses' sweeping generalisations to be precise.


freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

Inbred is not a race. Stupid is not a race.

Saying all [insert ethnic or religious group] are inbred and therefore stupid is racist. It really does take some spectacular mental gymnastics to say otherwise FD - and I admire your heroic attempts to apologise for racists.

Karnal wrote on Dec 13^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 9:30am: correct hammer - it was a broad, emotive non-factual comment from a "pissed off" person about a particular ethno-religious group - also known as racism. And excusing racism because muslim terrorists and extremists exist is not the solution. Thats what we call spineless apologism. No, G, we call this Freeeeedom. It's spineless apologism when you mention other extremists when there are Muslim terrorists/extremists/child brides out there. It's only racism when the Muselman tries to take away the Freeeeedom of decent white people. You can say what you like about the tinted races because they're not a race. It has to be something mean, of course. Say something nice, and you're a bigot - the soft bigotry of low expectations. This makes you a race traitor, and far worse than the tinted races. Race traitors will eventually be lined up and shot, or rounded up and gassed - in the fullness of time. If you're under any doubt, remember: if the tinted races say it, it's wacism. If decent white people say it, it's Freeeeedom.

Exhibit A: denigrating an entire religious group as inbred, stupid and filthy is nothing but a bit of sexism - but dare to say "arabia for arabs" - then look out, FD will hound you down for the most outrageous "blatant racism".

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 12:29pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 9:30am: correct hammer - it was a broad, emotive non-factual comment from a "pissed off" person about a particular ethno-religious group - also known as racism. And excusing racism because muslim terrorists and extremists exist is not the solution. Thats what we call spineless apologism. No, G, we call this Freeeeedom. It's spineless apologism when you mention other extremists when there are Muslim terrorists/extremists/child brides out there. It's only racism when the Muselman tries to take away the Freeeeedom of decent white people. You can say what you like about the tinted races because they're not a race. It has to be something mean, of course. Say something nice, and you're a bigot - the soft bigotry of low expectations. This makes you a race traitor, and far worse than the tinted races. Race traitors will eventually be lined up and shot, or rounded up and gassed - in the fullness of time. If you're under any doubt, remember: if the tinted races say it, it's wacism. If decent white people say it, it's Freeeeedom. Exhibit A: denigrating an entire religious group as inbred, stupid and filthy is nothing but a bit of sexism - but dare to say "arabia for arabs" - then look out, FD will hound you down for the most outrageous "blatant racism".

But of course. That's racist to decent white people everywhere.

Of course Arabia is not just for Arabs. What about BP? Total? Exxon?

Freeeedom, innit.

Quote:

Saying all [insert ethnic or religious group] are inbred and therefore stupid is racist.

Try again Gandalf. Remember, Islam is not a race. It is a religion. They are not the same thing. Niether Islam, stupid, or inbred are a race, and you cannot make them one by waving your arms in the air as you mix the words around.


Quote:

Exhibit A: denigrating an entire religious group as inbred, stupid and filthy is nothing but a bit of sexism - but dare to say "arabia for arabs" - then look out, FD will hound you down for the most outrageous "blatant racism".

Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Remember, Islam is not a race.

Head, let me introduce to you this brick wall...


freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf?

no. If anything its a tautology.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Remember, Islam is not a race. Head, let me introduce to you this brick wall... freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf? no. If anything its a tautology.

Actually, it was a joke.

The post-2007 FD is still learning about them.

Sprint and Yadda used to ask for a smiley to let on.

Would you like a visual cue, FD? After all, we wouldn't want to discriminate against those with disabilities, now would we?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Remember, Islam is not a race. Head, let me introduce to you this brick wall... freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf? no. If anything its a tautology.

So you will fabricate scientific racial references and attribute them to Moses in order to make the case that he is racist, but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it? And the main difference happens to be that one is indirectly supporting Muslims and one is criticising them?

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:40pm: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Remember, Islam is not a race. Head, let me introduce to you this brick wall... freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf? no. If anything its a tautology. So you will fabricate scientific racial references and attribute them to Moses in order to make the case that he is racist, but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it? And the main difference happens to be that one is indirectly supporting Muslims and one is criticising them?

Sorry, FD, are you saying Moses is not racist?

You'll need to explain that one, I'm afraid.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

So you will fabricate scientific racial references and attribute them to Moses

reference to a genetic sub-class of dirty, psychotic retards = "racial reference". Its also racist.


freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings

Ooh lets apply FD's favourite semantic game: here goes.. ahem...

arabs are not a race.

Karnal wrote on Dec 14^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:40pm: freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Remember, Islam is not a race. Head, let me introduce to you this brick wall... freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:27pm: Do you agree that "Arabia is for Arabs" is racist Gandalf? no. If anything its a tautology. So you will fabricate scientific racial references and attribute them to Moses in order to make the case that he is racist, but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings as well as his desire for genocide, you suddenly can't see it? And the main difference happens to be that one is indirectly supporting Muslims and one is criticising them? Sorry, FD, are you saying Moses is not racist? You'll need to explain that one, I'm afraid.

I wonder if FD would settle for bigoted, or concede in any way that Moses' speech is any way harmful and/or condemnable. I'd love to see him attempt his world famous tap-dancing act to explain how saying 100% of muslims are inbred, dirty retards is not bigoted or a problem in any way. That would really be something - even for FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 10:44am:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: So you will fabricate scientific racial references and attribute them to Moses reference to a genetic sub-class of dirty, psychotic retards = "racial reference". Its also racist. freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 8:09pm: but when Aussie makes a clear reference to racial groupings Ooh lets apply FD's favourite semantic game: here goes.. ahem... arabs are not a race.

Inbred Arabs, G - check the map. Arabs interbred with the Negroid sub-species - a plausible theory. Inbred Arabs who are genetically predisposed to squat to piss - sexist, not wacist.

And yes, inbred Arabs interbred with the Negroid sub-species who must squat to piss are not a race.

So just to be clear, an ethno-religious group is not a race, but a linguistic group is?

Or has FD finally realised that racism isn't actually about literal "races"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 11:20am:

So just to be clear, an ethno-religious group is not a race, but a linguistic group is? Or has FD finally realised that racism isn't actually about literal "races"?

No, FD just sees racism as the Muselman doing away with the freedom of decent white people everywhere. It's racism, you see, when it targets the white race.

You know, Arabia for Arabs - racist. Behead all those who insult the prophet - racist. Blaming Uncle and Mother for funding coups and installing dictators - racist.

This is just as bad as spineless apologism, where the race traitors excuse or try to cover up every Musel crime. The apologists do things like ask for evidence of the Sydney child bride epidemic or try to count the number of Muslim terrorist deaths in Australia. They blame Uncle for Muslim dictators like the Shah of Iran, the CIA-trained and US-armed ex-Egyptian dictator/billionaire, Hosni Mubarak, or US-armed and backed Indonesian general, Suharto, who killed millions. These leaders were on the side of Freeeedom, but if they had to kill or torture a few on Uncle's orders, that's Islam for you.

The apologists and race traitors always try to blame decent white people and never the inbred sub-species who carry out all the violence.

And we all know who that is, don't we?

Quote:

reference to a genetic sub-class of dirty, psychotic retards = "racial reference". Its also racist.

Is also happens to be another fabrication on your part. Have you dug up a quote of Moses referring to Muslims as a sub-species yet Gandalf? These are some extraordinary leaps of logic you want people to follow you on, in the name of painting criticism of Islam as racism.


Quote:

arabs are not a race

And inbred people are? Where are you trying to go with this Gandalf? An expose on the mental contortions of a Muslim reformer?


Quote:

I wonder if FD would settle for bigoted, or concede in any way that Moses' speech is any way harmful and/or condemnable.

So now you are negotiating? Why not just start with the truth? Did Moses refer to Muslims as a sub species, or did you just make that up when you realised I was correct that none of the words he actually used are racial references?


Quote:

Or has FD finally realised that racism isn't actually about literal "races"?

Is it about about deflecting criticism of your religion? As far as I can tell you actually agree to a large extent with what Moses said. You just don't like his tone.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

And inbred people are? Where are you trying to go with this Gandalf?

;D keep up FD - I'm not the one saying it can't be racism unless ir involves your notion of 19th century "races" (which don't exist by the way). Are you conceding now that arabs are not a race? If so, how is Aussie being racist again?

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

So now you are negotiating? Why not just start with the truth?

Good idea FD - how would you describe the "truth" pertaining to moses' statement - apart from insisting until you are blue in the face that its not racist? Do you have any other thoughts on it? Bigoted? Condemnable perhaps? Or is it perhaps fair enough to describe 100% of muslim males as intellectually retarded? I'm so glad we have you here pointing out the trully important things about hate speech - like policing what specific brand of hate speech it can't be, instead of, you know, actually condemning it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 1:38pm: So now you are negotiating? Why not just start with the truth? Good idea FD - how would you describe the "truth" pertaining to moses' statement - apart from insisting until you are blue in the face that its not racist? Do you have any other thoughts on it? Bigoted? Condemnable perhaps? Or is it perhaps fair enough to describe 100% of muslim males as intellectually retarded? I'm so glad we have you here pointing out the trully important things about hate speech - like policing what specific brand of hate speech it can't be, instead of, you know, actually condemning it.

Now now, G. FD fully supports Moses' right to say it.

The only ones who should be condemned for their views are Muslims and their apologists.

Quote:

Good idea FD - how would you describe the "truth" pertaining to moses' statement - apart from insisting until you are blue in the face that its not racist? Do you have any other thoughts on it? Bigoted? Condemnable perhaps?

Can we start with whether he actually said it Gandalf? Did Moses refer to Muslims as a sub species, or did you just make that up when you realised I was correct that none of the words he actually used are racial references?

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Quote: Good idea FD - how would you describe the "truth" pertaining to moses' statement - apart from insisting until you are blue in the face that its not racist? Do you have any other thoughts on it? Bigoted? Condemnable perhaps? Can we start with whether he actually said it Gandalf? Did Moses refer to Muslims as a sub species, or did you just make that up when you realised I was correct that none of the words he actually used are racial references?

It's okay to agree with those words, FD. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

You're in full agreement with Moses. Why don't you just say?

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Quote: Good idea FD - how would you describe the "truth" pertaining to moses' statement - apart from insisting until you are blue in the face that its not racist? Do you have any other thoughts on it? Bigoted? Condemnable perhaps? Can we start with whether he actually said it Gandalf? Did Moses refer to Muslims as a sub species, or did you just make that up when you realised I was correct that none of the words he actually used are racial references?

We're past that FD, keep up. We started and finished that when I explained to you very clearly how I think he said it. I even provided the quote - multiple times. You evidently disagreed with my interpretation, but I doubt anyone else on the planet would - including moses himself. How about we agree to disagree that referring to muslims as 100% intellectually disabled as a result of genetics is referring to muslims as a 'sub-species' hmmm?

So anyway, are you going to continue spinelessly apologising for him? When you see moses denigrating muslims in this way, is this really the first thing that you think of - to nitpick people who dare to call it racist? Do you think the most important thing about this hate speech is to attack the people who condemn this speech - because they are not using the "correct" label of bigotry?

Do you even recognize it as bigotry that should be condemned? I'm frankly having doubts.

Karnal wrote on Dec 15^th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

Why don't you just say?

no no no K - it is imperative we "start" by clearing up what type of bigot moses isn't before actually getting round to actually saying anything about his hate-filled bigotry.

Poor FD, he'd absolutely love to condemn the rampant bigotry that goes on here, but there's just too many more important things to do here - like nitpick and mock the spineless apologists when they condemn the bigotry.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:26pm: Why don't you just say? no no no K - it is imperative we "start" by clearing up what type of bigot moses isn't before actually getting round to actually saying anything about his hate-filled bigotry.

Of course. We'll get there, G. First, FD wants to ask a few questions before he'll tell you about Moses.

FD?

Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist?

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist?

There is a tavern down the road, 1/2 a kilometre, ford the creek, then turn left, about 1 km on, then over a low hill, take the next left, and you can't miss it, its at the next turn in the road.

Its a long and windy road,       .....to get where we are going!

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist?

Here's the first, G. We'll call this Question number 1.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist?

no.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 12:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2016 at 7:20pm: Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist? no.

Fair enough. So it is relevant. Did he actually describe Muslims as a sub species, or did you make that up when you realised I was correct that none of his actual words were racist?

No tapdancing please.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 12:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2016 at 7:20pm: Gandalf are you saying that what Moses actually said is irrelevant to whether what he said is racist? no. Fair enough. So it is relevant. Did he actually describe Muslims as a sub species, or did you make that up when you realised I was correct that none of his actual words were racist? No tapdancing please.

Here's the second. Question number 2.

This is quest number 1. Gandalf skipped ahead a question.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:21pm:

Did he actually describe Muslims as a sub species, or did you make that up when you realised I was correct that none of his actual words were racist?

FD I've already explained - I interpret categorising the entire muslim population as mentally retarded, psychopathic inbreds as describing muslims as a separate human sub-species. It also "racialises" muslims. Clearly you think that is wrong. How about we agree to disagree and move on hmmm?

Do you think calling moses' statement "racist" instead of "bigoted hate-speech towards an entire ethno-religious group" is unfair?

Not going to answer? Well can you at least answer me this - is moses' hate speech (you do recognised it has hate speech surely??) - any less inflamatory or condemnable than whatever you consider to be actual "racism"?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:46pm:

This is quest number 1. Gandalf skipped ahead a question.

Yes, but you evaded a question.


Quote:

Do you even recognize it as bigotry that should be condemned? I'm frankly having doubts.

Quote:

FD I've already explained - I interpret categorising the entire muslim population as mentally retarded, psychopathic inbreds as describing muslims as a separate human sub-species.

Is that another way of saying you made it up? Was he really referring to the entire Muslim population?


Quote:

Clearly you think that is wrong. How about we agree to disagree and move on hmmm?

If you still don't realise how you are wrong, I would like to dwell on this a bit more. I am particularly interested in your strategy of "re-interpreting" what people said after your first interpretation is shown to be incorrect. I would say that accusing Moses of racism is an interpretation. Accusing him of referring to Muslims as a sub species is just a lie, intended to back your false interpretation.

You also lied about none of your ancestors being inbred.


Quote:

Do you think calling moses' statement "racist" instead of "bigoted hate-speech towards an entire ethno-religious group" is unfair?

I think it is a deliberate strategy by you to racialise criticism of Islam and reinforce the Islamic victimhood industry. It is unfair to your fellow Muslims and apologists. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

Quote: FD I've already explained - I interpret categorising the entire muslim population as mentally retarded, psychopathic inbreds as describing muslims as a separate human sub-species. Is that another way of saying you made it up? Was he really referring to the entire Muslim population?

Is this question number 3, or are we still on permutations of question 1?

I'm confused.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

Quote: FD I've already explained - I interpret categorising the entire muslim population as mentally retarded, psychopathic inbreds as describing muslims as a separate human sub-species. Is that another way of saying you made it up? Was he really referring to the entire Muslim population? [quote]Clearly you think that is wrong. How about we agree to disagree and move on hmmm?

If you still don't realise how you are wrong, I would like to dwell on this a bit more. I am particularly interested in your strategy of "re-interpreting" what people said after your first interpretation is shown to be incorrect. I would say that accusing Moses of racism is an interpretation. Accusing him of referring to Muslims as a sub species is just a lie, intended to back your false interpretation.

You also lied about none of your ancestors being inbred.


Quote:

Do you think calling moses' statement "racist" instead of "bigoted hate-speech towards an entire ethno-religious group" is unfair?

I think it is a deliberate strategy by you to racialise criticism of Islam and reinforce the Islamic victimhood industry. It is unfair to your fellow Muslims and apologists. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.[/quote]

Looks like you've got your answer, G. FD was quick this time.

The answer is no. Calling a race inbred, subnormal and genetically inferior is not racist or bigoted, it's perfectly reasonable if they're Muslims. In fact, saying this is racist is unfair to your fellow Muslims and apologists. It's bigotry of the highest order.

Oh, G. How could you?

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ffee90a9f58e8b30f1cb74eac35ec1e4?width=1024

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

Was he really referring to the entire Muslim population?

I'm so glad you brought that up FD, as it proves your fanstastically stupid logic can still get stupider.

Moses made a very specific reference to the entire population - 1.5 billion, read it again, I've posted it enough times. He then used that figure to "calculate" the number of men, who he went on to describe as 100% (750 million, read the quote) as intellectually retarded. That includes me, who isn't even of arab origin, who doesn't come from that favourite "genetic/caliphate map" of yours that you post at every opportunity.

So now I guess we can apply ingenious FD logic and point out he was only talking about half the muslim population and say "see! women are not included! - Its just a bit of sexism!" - right? Which would only "very stupid" (as opposed to 'about as stupid as you can get'), if you didn't stop to consider how inbreeding (hell, any breeding) occurs. That, shock horror, it involves men and women - and that if 100% of men were intellectually retarded (lets see you try and spin him not saying that lol), that would be impossible unless 100% of the women were also intellectually retarded.

So yes, Moses was referring to the entire muslim population when he referred to them  being a genetic sub-species as being intellectually retarded due to inbreeding

Quote:

Moses made a very specific reference to the entire population - 1.5 billion, read it again, I've posted it enough times.

Please post it again. The only one I recall is his reference to Muslim men, which you "intepretted" to mean sub species.


Quote:

He then used that figure to "calculate" the number of men, who he went on to describe as 100% (750 million, read the quote) as intellectually retarded.

He described Muslim men as 100% of "the entire muslim population"? Can women be Muslims Gandalf? Please post his calculation.


Quote:

That includes me, who isn't even of arab origin

Finally, conclusive proof of racism. Tell us about your non-inbred ancestors again.


Quote:

So now I guess we can apply ingenious FD logic and point out he was only talking about half the muslim population

Why is it a special trait of mine to refer to what people actually said rather than making stuff up?


Quote:

and say "see! women are not included! - Its just a bit of sexism!" - right? Which would only "very stupid" (as opposed to 'about as stupid as you can get'), if you didn't stop to consider how inbreeding (hell, any breeding) occurs.

Were any of your ancestors inbred Gandalf?


Quote:

That, shock horror, it involves men and women - and that if 100% of men were intellectually retarded (lets see you try and spin him not saying that lol), that would be impossible unless 100% of the women were also intellectually retarded.

By Jesus, I think you have got him Gandalf. Let's see what he has to say about this, shall we?


Quote:

So yes, Moses was referring to the entire muslim population when he referred to them  being a genetic sub-species as being intellectually retarded due to inbreeding

You agree that the high rate of inbreeding among the worlds Muslism causes intellectual retardation, right? I am pretty sure you have said so, when you weren't going apopleptic and calling it racism.

Because you rarely refer to what people said, FD, and you always make stuff up.

Do you deny this?

For FD:


Quote:

The result to day is that if there's 1.5 billion muslims, half are men 750 million inbred low intellect muslim men all squatting down to urinate, murdering people to emulate muhammad

.

Hadn't seen that one? Fair enough, I've only reposted  it about 20 times.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

He described Muslim men as 100% of "the entire muslim population"? Can women be Muslims Gandalf? Please post his calculation.

you misread FD - he describes 100% of muslim men as inbred/retarded. Do you think this is possible without 100% of muslim women also being inbred/retarded? Hint: common sense is allowed here.


freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

You agree that the high rate of inbreeding among the worlds Muslism causes intellectual retardation, right? I am pretty sure you have said so, when you weren't going apopleptic and calling it racism.

Just when you thought FD's argument couldn't get any dumber...

there is some evidence to suggest that inbreeding leads to low intellect - its certainly not conclusive, but there is some evidence. And additionally, we know that consanguinity rates are higher in the middle east.

But FD, even if you agree with that premise, do you think its reasonable to then go on to say that 100% of muslim men (750 million) are of low intellect? It would have to be based on the premise that 100% of muslims are inbred - correct? Who has said that? No one except moses. Your inbred/caliphate map show higher rates of inbreeding in muslim nations - but certainly nowhere near 100% - obviously. Actually I can't believe you even used the facts about inbreeding in the middle east to try and apologise for moses' bigotry. Have you decided if its bigotry yet? Don't want to say?

Quote:

you misread FD - he describes 100% of muslim men as inbred/retarded. Do you think this is possible without 100% of muslim women also being inbred/retarded? Hint: common sense is allowed here.

Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf. Also, males tend to have more of a choice in the matter.


Quote:

Actually I can't believe you even used the facts about inbreeding in the middle east to try and apologise for moses' bigotry.

I am trying to explain that it is not racism. You are the one trying to negotiate the sentence down to bigotry, now that you (hopefully) accept you were wrong to "interpret" Moses's posts the way you did.


Quote:

It would have to be based on the premise that 100% of muslims are inbred - correct?

Is this like when you said all Islamophobia is based on racism because it is the only rational explanation for the irrational view? Don't ask me to explain what Moses' reasoning is after your spectacular failures at "interpreting" it.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:45am:

Quote: you misread FD - he describes 100% of muslim men as inbred/retarded. Do you think this is possible without 100% of muslim women also being inbred/retarded? Hint: common sense is allowed here. Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf. Also, males tend to have more of a choice in the matter. [quote]Actually I can't believe you even used the facts about inbreeding in the middle east to try and apologise for moses' bigotry.

I am trying to explain that it is not racism.[/quote]

And by doing so, you've shown exactly how it is racism.

Sorry, FD, wacism.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:45am:

Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf.

Ah yes, I'm positive thats what moses meant.


freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:45am:

I am trying to explain that it is not racism.

No FD, we've moved on from that a long time ago. I've accepted that you don't believe its racism and moved on. Agree to disagree remember? I even started a new thread so we can continue the "its racism/its not racism" argument there. Now we're on to deconstructing your brave efforts to rationalise Moses' outrageous and wholly unscientific statement - with gems like this:


Quote:

You agree that the high rate of inbreeding among the worlds Muslism causes intellectual retardation, right? I am pretty sure you have said so, when you weren't going apopleptic and calling it racism.

Interesting that you now bring science into the debate as an excuse not to call moses' claim for the rubbish it is. Would you mind confirming with us that you think moses' statement about "750 million males" being intellectually retarded because of inbreeding stacks up scientifically? If not, why on earth would you bring it up in this context?


freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:45am:

Don't ask me to explain what Moses' reasoning is after your spectacular failures at "interpreting" it.

Oh but you have explained moses' reasoning FD - you justified it by referring to the scientific evidence that 1. inbreeding causes mental retardation and 2. males are more prone to mental retardation. Therefore moses' statement that 100% of the male muslim population is mentally retarded - is justified.

Now why didn't FD just say that in the first place?

FD, it would make things much easier if you just said what you think. We won't bite, you know.

Quote:

Ah yes, I'm positive thats what moses meant.

You have no clue what he meant. You are too busy putting words in his mouth to find out.


Quote:

No FD, we've moved on from that a long time ago. I've accepted that you don't believe its racism and moved on.

Do you still think it is racism?


Quote:

Agree to disagree remember?

I do not recall any such agreement.


Quote:

Now we're on to deconstructing your brave efforts to rationalise Moses' outrageous and wholly unscientific statement - with gems like this:

Are you attempting to assign motive to my words in an effort to avoid acknowledging their truth?


Quote:

Interesting that you now bring science into the debate as an excuse not to call moses' claim for the rubbish it is. Would you mind confirming with us that you think moses' statement about "750 million males" being intellectually retarded because of inbreeding stacks up scientifically? If not, why on earth would you bring it up in this context?

To highlight that your disagreement with Moses is merely one of extent (and that you were wrong to "interpret" it as racism by lying about what he said).


Quote:

Oh but you have explained moses' reasoning FD

No Gandalf, I have been explaining my own. I do not speak for Moses. I'll leave that to you, and your "interpretation".

FD, if you don't mind me saying, you've gone to incredible lengths to avoid explaining your own.

But if you'd like to explain your own view on the matter, will you allow me to put a question to you?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 5:18am:

You have no clue what he meant. You are too busy putting words in his mouth to find out.

Tell me FD, is this putting words into moses' mouth - when you apologised for his claim that 100% of male muslims are inbred/retarded:?


freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:45am:

Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf. Also, males tend to have more of a choice in the matter.

Do you think this is what moses meant when he described 100% of the male muslim population as retarded due to inbreeding - that it only applied to the males and not the females because of the "scientific" reasoning you put forward?


freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 5:18am:

Are you attempting to assign motive to my words in an effort to avoid acknowledging their truth?

Oh I think I have a fair idea of the "truth" here FD - namely that saying 100% of the entire male muslim population are not inbred/mentally retarded is complete nonsense. I also consider this racism of the most blatant kind.

You on the other hand seem to think that moses is on to something "scientifically", and that the only thing wrong with his comment is a minor detail regarding "extent". And thats why you spinelessly apologise for it by strawmaning me with the old "downplaying the real dangers of inbreeding" ruse, and pull out every trick in the book to avoid calling it out for the inflammatory bigotry (even if you insist its not racist) that it is.

But of course. FD agrees with it. All of it.

Come now, G, what did you think FD's "sustainability" thing was about?

Quote:

Do you think this is what moses meant when he described 100% of the male muslim population as retarded due to inbreeding - that it only applied to the males and not the females because of the "scientific" reasoning you put forward?

Like I said, if you want to know what he meant, take a break from inventing reasons why it is racist and ask him.


Quote:

Oh I think I have a fair idea of the "truth" here FD - namely that saying 100% of the entire male muslim population are not inbred/mentally retarded is complete nonsense. I also consider this racism of the most blatant kind.

Racism normally involves a reference to race, like the ones you made up and attributed to him. Would you like to try arguing it is racist without making anything up?


Quote:

You on the other hand seem to think that moses is on to something "scientifically"

What I think is simply what I say - that it is not racist.


Quote:

and that the only thing wrong with his comment is a minor detail regarding "extent"

If he changed the percentage, you would actually agree with him, so yes that is correct.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Racism normally involves a reference to race, like the ones you made up and attributed to him. Would you like to try arguing it is racist without making anything up?

Sure. Its racist because he is denigrating, through homogenisation, an entire group based on cultural and religious attributes. Like I've always said, racism has little to do with your thoroughly debunked 19th century notions of "race", which you twist yourself into knots trying to explain (FD: "the asian race" lol). The fact that he goes further than most racists and adds the genetic element to it just makes it that much more blatant.


freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Racism normally involves a reference to race

Good point FD - now try and explain to me what a "race" is. Oh thats right you can't. You come up with gems like "the asian race". As I've already explained, "race" is arbitrary and wholly unscientific. We know that the traditional view of humans being categorised into neat little genetic "racial groups" is nonsense. It literally comes down to ignorant bigots loooking at people with black skin, or slanty eyes and saying "you are a race because you look the same". But it bears no relationship to actual genetic categorisations. It is, as I say, completely arbitrary and based on non-scientific nonsense. Therefore, if its acceptable for 'racism' to be based on one type of arbitrary attempt at human categorisation, why can't it be based on another type of arbitrary categorisation - say like "all muslims", or "all those guys who must be inbred"?


freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Like I said, if you want to know what he meant, take a break from inventing reasons why it is racist and ask him

Do you think we need to ask him about his comment before we can understand whether its bigoted or inflammatory? Don't worry FD, I'm expecting you to dodge that one once again.

Quote:

Sure. Its racist because he is denigrating, through homogenisation, an entire group based on cultural and religious attributes.

So, not race?


Quote:

Like I've always said, racism has little to do with your thoroughly debunked 19th century notions of "race"

Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf. It doesn't mean you can cry wacism every time someone says something mean just because you think it has lost the original meaning.


Quote:

Therefore, if its acceptable for 'racism' to be based on one type of arbitrary attempt at human categorisation, why can't it be based on another type of arbitrary categorisation - say like "all muslims", or "all those guys who must be inbred"?

Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning. You'll get the hang of it eventually.


Quote:

Do you think we need to ask him about his comment before we can understand whether its bigoted or inflammatory?

I have no doubt it gets you all inflamed Gandalf. Still not racism.

That's right, G. It's sexism.

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf.

So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters?


freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning.

Excellent point FD. For example, 'anti-semite' is a term that is restricted to being anti-jew, even though a 'semite' refers to all people who speak a semitic language, of which jews are just one. Welcome to the English language innit

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 7:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf. So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters?

Oh, that's easy. It's when you're mean to decent white people everywhere.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 9:10am:

I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged.

No Libel laws no contempt of court for anything that is said no charge from the police no matter what you say to them ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 7:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf. So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters? freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning. Excellent point FD. For example, 'anti-semite' is a term that is restricted to being anti-jew, even though a 'semite' refers to all people who speak a semitic language, of which jews are just one. Welcome to the English language innit

English can be very difficult for newcomers because of these inconsistencies, but I assure you that the words still have meaning despite them. Like I said, keep at it and you'll get the hang of it eventually.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2017 at 5:57pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Racism still exists even if you don't think races do Gandalf. So what is 'racism' then FD? What are the allowed parameters? freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 8:54am: Welcome to the English language Gandalf. Words have meaning. Excellent point FD. For example, 'anti-semite' is a term that is restricted to being anti-jew, even though a 'semite' refers to all people who speak a semitic language, of which jews are just one. Welcome to the English language innit English can be very difficult for newcomers because of these inconsistencies, but I assure you that the words still have meaning despite them. Like I said, keep at it and you'll get the hang of it eventually.

Well apparently you haven't got the hang of it yet - here you seem to accept that the term "anti-semitism" can mean something different to its literal meaning, but the same thing can't happen with the term "racism". Can you explain that?

And you haven't answered the question - what is "racism" in your view ? What is allowed and what is not? Because, no offense, you seem rather confused about it all: Islamophobia is not allowed - because muslims are not a 'race' - but 'arabia for arabs' is not just racism - its blatant racism, because... err... arabs aren't a race either, but a linguistic group? You never did explain how that works. Is it because you are completely clueless about 'race' itself - thinking, for example, that there is an "Asian" race? Has it clicked yet how utterly ridiculous that is?

Race and class are like beauty - you know it when you see it.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Race and class are like beauty - you know it when you see it.

Okay....who is classier here?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8c/1b/0b/8c1b0b82943cffe7bd85f514cea6c6ad.jpg

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 1:51pm:

Race and class are like beauty - you know it when you see it.

I think thats the problem Frank - people "see" race, as in outward superficial physical features like black skin or slanty eyes - but it is in fact a categorisation that is completely arbitrary. There is actually more genetic variation within these "groups" than between them and other groups.

And then you know you're really in trouble when you get people like FD throwing in their ignorant stereotypes about the 'other' into the mix - boldly declaring somewhere as vast and genetically diverse as Asia to be reduced to the one "Asian race".

Come to think of it, it seems to me that its people insisting that humans can be categorised into "races" (whatever that means, no one wants to explain it) that is half the problem. Because its little more than a demonstration of chauvinistic ignorance based on fear and prejudice.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31^st, 2016 at 8:46pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. No Libel laws no contempt of court for anything that is said no charge from the police no matter what you say to them ?

Defamation laws protect an individual from the publication or uttering of false or misleading statements specifically about them that are designed to damage their reputation. The concept of freedom  of speech is the protection of the expression of ideas and opinions, not about deliberately damaging the reputation of an individual.

Contempt of court covers specific actions designed to prevent disruption of proceedings and to ensure compliance with court instructions. Abuse of police in the course of their duties  is in a similar category. Again, The fact that these actions are offences does not mean that the expression of an opinion in general conversation, in the media or anywhere else is prohibited.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 1:51pm: Race and class are like beauty - you know it when you see it. I think thats the problem Frank - people "see" race, as in outward superficial physical features like black skin or slanty eyes - but it is in fact a categorisation that is completely arbitrary. There is actually more genetic variation within these "groups" than between them and other groups. And then you know you're really in trouble when you get people like FD throwing in their ignorant stereotypes about the 'other' into the mix - boldly declaring somewhere as vast and genetically diverse as Asia to be reduced to the one "Asian race". Come to think of it, it seems to me that its people insisting that humans can be categorised into "races" (whatever that means, no one wants to explain it) that is half the problem. Because its little more than a demonstration of chauvinistic ignorance based on fear and prejudice.

The outward signs matter mostly when they signify the cultural beneath.
Slanty eyed Chinese krone, yammering loudly on her phone on the train?
Olive skinned man with massive beard, wife in a niqab, swaggering down street in a Lonsdale Tshirt?
Subcontinental woman in sari, reeking of BO and stale curry in the supermarket?
Honky dude with piggy eyes and a rat-tail, covered in tats?
Fragrant yummy mummy with adorable, well-behaved blonde kiddies at the beach?

Racial stereotypes are not baseless. You don't have a lot of blonde people reeking of stale curry or a wife in a niqab.


Race is not everything but it is not nothing either. One of the best books about Muslim is by a West Indian Indian, VS Naipaul.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:34pm:

Racial stereotypes are not baseless. You don't have a lot of blonde people reeking of stale curry or a wife in a niqab.

Neither curries or niqabs are races, or even define any races.

All you have pointed out is that your confused notion of "race" is redundant. All you have described in that cute little list are stereotypes of different cultures and ethnicities. There is literally no need to throw in 'race' amongst that mix.

Racists object to culture and customs. They do this by homogenising the 'other' and applying blanket negative stereotypes to them. Outward physical appearances, including biological traits are a key component to this - as you have so adeptly demonstrated yourself. It explains why I, a lilly white anglo, will never be a victim of Islamophobia (a form of racism), even though I'm a muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:47pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 2:34pm: Racial stereotypes are not baseless. You don't have a lot of blonde people reeking of stale curry or a wife in a niqab. Neither curries or niqabs are races, or even define any races. All you have pointed out is that your confused notion of "race" is redundant. All you have described in that cute little list are stereotypes of different cultures and ethnicities. There is literally no need to throw in 'race' amongst that mix. Racists object to culture and customs. They do this by homogenising the 'other' and applying blanket negative stereotypes to them. Outward physical appearances, including biological traits are a key component to this - as you have so adeptly demonstrated yourself. It explains why I, a lilly white anglo, will never be a victim of Islamophobia (a form of racism), even though I'm a muslim.

Is Zionism racism?

Race doesn't stand alone, it signifies a lot of cultural markers: outlook, values, beliefs, attitudes all adding up to group identity. People adopting group identities - Black, Muslim, Indian, European, Chinese - assume the characteristics of the group they identify with.

This is why it is incongruous to see a blonde and blue eyed 'Aborigine' or a white hijabi. It's interesting that there are not a lot of Chinese converting to Islam but it's the races that have lost the cultures within them: blacks, Aborigines, uneducated or damaged whites.

Look at Muslim stand up - racial and cultural stereotyping is the stuff of jokes because we all understand the stereotypes. And we understand them because they are based on well-observed truths.

Ethnicity is just another word for race. You put on the full Muslim paraphernalia an you will be subject to some sharp comment or lamentation about what's gone wrong with you.

I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same.

The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people, but they also see themselves as exiles, as slaves.

I've only met a few racist Jews - there are two on this very site - maybe more.

What's your religion, Frank? I'm curious.

Karnal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:17pm:

I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same. The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people, but they also see themselves as exiles, as slaves. I've only met a few racist Jews - there are two on this very site - maybe more. What's your religion, Frank? I'm curious.

So - is Zionism racism?

Belgarion wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 9:10am: I agree with the OP. Freedom of speech means exactly that. There is no human right not to be offended. Any opinion can be expressed and any opinion can be challenged. No Libel laws no contempt of court for anything that is said no charge from the police no matter what you say to them ? Defamation laws protect an individual from the publication or uttering of false or misleading statements specifically about them that are designed to damage their reputation. The concept of freedom  of speech is the protection of the expression of ideas and opinions, not about deliberately damaging the reputation of an individual. Contempt of court covers specific actions designed to prevent disruption of proceedings and to ensure compliance with court instructions. Abuse of police in the course of their duties  is in a similar category. Again, The fact that these actions are offences does not mean that the expression of an opinion in general conversation, in the media or anywhere else is prohibited.

So you correctly lay out examples that are exempt from freedom of speech.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:17pm: I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same. The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people, but they also see themselves as exiles, as slaves. I've only met a few racist Jews - there are two on this very site - maybe more. What's your religion, Frank? I'm curious. So - is Zionism racism?

No

Karnal wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 12:08pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:45am: Quote: you misread FD - he describes 100% of muslim men as inbred/retarded. Do you think this is possible without 100% of muslim women also being inbred/retarded? Hint: common sense is allowed here. Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf. Also, males tend to have more of a choice in the matter. [quote]Actually I can't believe you even used the facts about inbreeding in the middle east to try and apologise for moses' bigotry. I am trying to explain that it is not racism.

And by doing so, you've shown exactly how it is racism.

Sorry, FD, wacism.[/quote]

I think it is a trifecta: we have Race Sex and Religion.

Maybe even a Quaddie when you throw in the insults to the disabled and mentally handicapped people.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:38pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:31pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:17pm: I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same. The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people, but they also see themselves as exiles, as slaves. I've only met a few racist Jews - there are two on this very site - maybe more. What's your religion, Frank? I'm curious. So - is Zionism racism? No

Gandalf??  Karnal?  Brian?

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:17pm: I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same. The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people, but they also see themselves as exiles, as slaves. I've only met a few racist Jews - there are two on this very site - maybe more. What's your religion, Frank? I'm curious. So - is Zionism racism?

Playing FD, eh?

Good show. So what religion are you, Frank?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 12:08pm: freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:45am: Quote: you misread FD - he describes 100% of muslim men as inbred/retarded. Do you think this is possible without 100% of muslim women also being inbred/retarded? Hint: common sense is allowed here. Males are far more prone to mental retardation than females Gandalf. Also, males tend to have more of a choice in the matter. [quote]Actually I can't believe you even used the facts about inbreeding in the middle east to try and apologise for moses' bigotry. I am trying to explain that it is not racism. And by doing so, you've shown exactly how it is racism. Sorry, FD, wacism.

I think it is a trifecta: we have Race Sex and Religion.

Maybe even a Quaddie when you throw in the insults to the disabled and mentally handicapped people.
[/quote]

I don't think FD's disabled, Dnarever. He goes to great lengths to distance himself from the subhuman and inbred races.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:47pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 2:34pm: Racial stereotypes are not baseless. You don't have a lot of blonde people reeking of stale curry or a wife in a niqab. Neither curries or niqabs are races, or even define any races. All you have pointed out is that your confused notion of "race" is redundant. All you have described in that cute little list are stereotypes of different cultures and ethnicities. There is literally no need to throw in 'race' amongst that mix. Racists object to culture and customs. They do this by homogenising the 'other' and applying blanket negative stereotypes to them. Outward physical appearances, including biological traits are a key component to this - as you have so adeptly demonstrated yourself. It explains why I, a lilly white anglo, will never be a victim of Islamophobia (a form of racism), even though I'm a muslim.

Is Zionism racism?

Karnal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 10:45pm:

I don't think FD's disabled, Dnarever. He goes to great lengths to distance himself from the subhuman and inbred races.

Do you identify with subhuman and inbred races?

Karnal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:17pm:

I don't think Zionism is racism, dear boy, but an enigmatic question all the same. The Jewish race see themselves as God's chosen people,

So do Muslims.

They are trying to out-Jew the Jews.  They never have an original idea, those Muslims.  Always derivative, resentful, second-hand. 

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 11:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 10:45pm: I don't think FD's disabled, Dnarever. He goes to great lengths to distance himself from the subhuman and inbred races. Do you identify with subhuman and inbred races?

I most certainly do, dear boy. I work with them.

Now off to bed before Sister comes back. We don't want a repeat of last night's incident, now do we?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 1:51pm: Race and class are like beauty - you know it when you see it. I think thats the problem Frank - people "see" race, as in outward superficial physical features like black skin or slanty eyes - but it is in fact a categorisation that is completely arbitrary. There is actually more genetic variation within these "groups" than between them and other groups. And then you know you're really in trouble when you get people like FD throwing in their ignorant stereotypes about the 'other' into the mix - boldly declaring somewhere as vast and genetically diverse as Asia to be reduced to the one "Asian race". Come to think of it, it seems to me that its people insisting that humans can be categorised into "races" (whatever that means, no one wants to explain it) that is half the problem. Because its little more than a demonstration of chauvinistic ignorance based on fear and prejudice.

How do you tell who can use Aboriginal-only computer labs?

I think your whole 'racism is meaningless' argument is totally flawed because it goes too far (something social justice warriors do routinely).

Race is a cultural attribute that nevertheless maps onto physiognomy that is readily recognised by everyone. Blacks, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, whites recognise themselves and each other as such. Yes, there is further cultural difference within races, even countries speaking the same language (Greek-stock Sicilians versus Norman-stock).

Everyone recognises that Blacks are Africans somewhere down the track, whites are Europeans, chinky-poos are East Asians and so on. Some people like other races and their cultures, others don't. People of the same race an culture stick together because they can read and understand each other in a way they can't read and understand alien races and cultures. It's not meaningless - everyone can see that it does play a role in everyone's lives.

If there was anything worth being pragmatic about, race is it. Denying its very real function in everyone's lives is just going way too far.

As far as Muslims are concerned, they are still overwhelmingly Arab/North African, Sub-continental and South-East Asians. Not a lot of Japanese or Korean Muslim, and still not a lot of white Muslims, you included.
I am pretty sure you relate somewhat differently to white Australian converts like yourself and to, say, recently arrived Saudi Arabs.  But don't worry, it's natural. You get the white Australian convert much more than the Arab.