Quote:

So who’s singing Australia’s song? The Australian 12:00AM March 8, 2017 Gary Johns A favourite image of the ‘‘Real Australians say welcome’’ (to refugees and migrants) crowd is that of the 19th-century Afghan camel driver: a much-admired poster in inner-city eateries. I could post some of my own. How about one of the 500 or so Australians of Muslim background who have left Australia, or attempted to leave, to fight with Islamic State? How about one of the thousands of Muslims in Australian jails? Muslims in NSW and Victoria are in jail at almost three times their presence in the population. Not so admired, hey? How about one of the Muslim students who refuse to shake a woman’s hand? How about Keysar Trad for his “traditional” Muslim attitudes to women? Or Yassmin Abdel-Magied, the public broadcasters’ pet “handkerchief glamour” Muslim (a beautiful description by Tanveer Ahmed) for her studied ignorance of Islam’s attitude to women? Somewhere between allegiance to Australia and the Muslim identity sits you and me, middle Australia. So, who should real Australians say welcome to? A group that we do not trust? In a 2014 Scanlon (local area) survey, of the 48 per cent who moderately endorsed multiculturalism, only 23 per cent were positive towards Muslims; by contrast, 43 per cent were positive towards Buddhists. Feminists argue that criticising Muslim attitudes to women is a ploy to criticise Islam. And what is wrong with that? What do you support, women’s equality or a religion that appears to damn it? Frank Salter points out that while 500 Australian Muslims volunteered or attempted to volunteer for Islamic State or other Islamist military groups, only 100 Muslims volunteered to serve in the Australian Army. The politics of this tension between allegiance and identity is quite straightforward. I can assure all politicians that national allegiance beats religious (or cultural, racial, ethnic) identity every time. Pauline Hanson has vowed to resolve the tension by threatening to ban Muslim immigration. This stance is too illiberal for a liberal democracy but, nevertheless, Australian leaders are bound to assess the risk associated with Muslim (and all other) immigrants. At present, immigration officials assess character, mainly to keep out criminals. But how to assess values? How do we know who is a real Australian? Since 2007, when applying for selected visas, applicants have been required to sign an Australian values statement (Life in Australia: Australian values and principles) confirming that they will respect Australian values and obey the laws of Australia. Few Australians know of its existence. It may be some years before it is known whether this affirmation of Australian values is sufficient to quell disquiet or, more important, to keep out those who are unlikely to show allegiance to Australia. Meanwhile, for those in Australia, the struggle between allegiance and identity goes on. The frontlines are schools and women. These little battles for allegiance will, in time, help make plain the meaning of Australian values, which are set out in broad terms in the Australian values statement. The NSW Education Department is in the middle of two such battles. It defended the principal of Hurstville Boys School who, at the 2016 presentation day, explained to guests making awards that some Muslim students “may place their hand across their chest instead of shaking hands”. A small victory for identity. Mark Scott, NSW Education Department director-general, has confirmed that Punchbowl Boys High School refuses to participate in a government-funded school deradicalisation program. Another small victory for identity. Cranbourne Carlisle Primary School in Melbourne allowed Muslim children to leave the room at the singing of the national anthem during a holy month of mourning. The principal said during the month of Muharram, Shia Muslims do not take part in joyous events such as listening to music or singing. Another victory for identity. The Australian International Islamic College in the suburb of Durack, in Brisbane, ruled that Advance Australia Fair was against the Islamic ethos. A memo was sent to parents announcing the singing of the anthem would be suspended. In overturning the suspension, school board trustee Trad, everywhere man, conceded that the outgoing school principal, Azroul Liza Khalid, had “put on hold” the playing of the anthem at school assemblies. Another, albeit short-lived, victory for identity. The fight over section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is, of course, a big battle for identity. Muslim voters in a number of seats in western Sydney persuaded Tony Abbott to abandon his promised amendments. Malcolm Turnbull faces the same dilemma. The answer is quite straightforward: support allegiance to the liberal nation, not an illiberal identity.

The 18C battle is about making hate speech acceptable, not protecting free speech  ::) ::)

Why is that Brian? Because freedom of speech does not include anything you don't think is acceptable? You see no contradiction between freedom of speech and the government picking and choosing what people are allowed to say?

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

The 18C battle is about making hate speech acceptable, not protecting free speech[/url]  ::) ::)

Whats the difference?

Our society doesn't protect free speech - never has.

That is why Gandalf is afraid to list all the things he is not allowed to say.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:

That is why Gandalf is afraid to list all the things he is not allowed to say.

Am I?

lets start with 'fire' in the cinema..

The contemporary version is "Allahu Akbar in the cinema".

What do you think FD - do we have freedom of speech?

I think I would probably get away with yelling fire in a cinema, unless someone actually got hurt.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

The 18C battle is about making hate speech acceptable, not protecting free speech  ::) ::)

Did you read the sensible  comments Irene Moss has made bwian or are you ignoring that too ...  I did post the article...  just for you.

Really gandalf that's a pretty stupid argument.
try another strawman, that might work better. :D :D :D

The things I do for you bwian... ;)


Grendel wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 10:14am:

Oh dear.... Oops.... oh dearie dearie me...  tsk, tsk, tsk... Runaway, runaway bwian...  oh wait now I'm confusing you with 2 Monty Python movies. The Lies of Bwian and The Holier than Thou..... Oh well... We all know 18C is a crock... And we all know its not so much about freedom of speech but common-sense right? So here's something from someone you may have looked up to in the past... Quote: 18C pioneer Irene Moss says law must change to block trivial complaints •      Chris Merritt •      The Australian •      12:00AM March 6, 2017 •      Chris Merritt Legal Affairs Editor The head of the inquiry that led to the introduction of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act says the law needs to be changed to avoid the risk of trivial complaints and confusion. Former race discrimination commissioner Irene Moss, whose 1991 report on racial violence led the Keating government to introduce section 18C, said the law went beyond her report’s recommendations. It had “ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion”. “The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,” she said. Ms Moss has outlined a reform plan that is broadly in line with that of former human rights commissioner Sev Ozdowski and Liberal senator James Patterson. Her call for change puts her at odds with Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, who told the ABC last week that options for reforming section 18C amounted to “solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist; we really don’t have a problem with 18C”. Ms Moss’s intervention is also set to complicate the position of Tim Soutphommasane, her successor as Race Discrimination Commissioner. At the moment, this provision makes it unlawful to do anything that causes others to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethic background. Ms Moss favours dropping the terms “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” and ensuring the law focuses on “objective harm”. “In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility,” she said. “I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.” Presently, conduct that complies with the objective standards of the Australian community can be branded racist under section 18C. Judges are required to give priority to the objective standards of the racial or ethnic group that complains, not those of the general community. Ms Moss, who conducted an audit of restrictions on freedom of speech for the Right to Know coalition of media organisations, said it was incorrect to view the debate over section 18C as a contest between freedom of speech and the need to fight racism. Rather, it should properly be viewed as a debate about how to make the law clear and effective. Ms Moss, also a former magistrate, NSW ombudsman and commissioner of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, said: “In my experience in all four of those offices, it is crucial to the effectiveness of provisions defining offences that the provisions should be focused and clear. If the offences as defined in the legislation are too broad or too subjective, the decisions made by the statutory authorities entrusted with (its) administration … will very likely be inconsistent, unpredictable and subject to criticism. ” Oh dear bwian whatever will you do? Stop making vexatious claims about everybody perhaps?

Grendel wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 7:22am:

Really gandalf that's a pretty stupid argument. try another strawman, that might work better. :D :D :D

whats stupid - to say we don't have freedom of speech?

why don't you go stand on Pitt St and yell at the top of your voice you want all muslims to die. Or walk into a police station and tell them you intend to blow them up. Lets see how free you are then.

Yes, G, but I think it comes down to the definition of free speech.

FD was going to provide it, but I think he forgot.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 9:21am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 7:22am: Really gandalf that's a pretty stupid argument. try another strawman, that might work better. :D :D :D whats stupid - to say we don't have freedom of speech? why don't you go stand on Pitt St and yell at the top of your voice you want all muslims to die. Or walk into a police station and tell them you intend to blow them up. Lets see how free you are then.

LOL...  really?
If you honestly don't know then you are much much much dumber than I gave you credit for. :D :D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 9:21am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 7:22am: Really gandalf that's a pretty stupid argument. try another strawman, that might work better. :D :D :D whats stupid - to say we don't have freedom of speech? why don't you go stand on Pitt St and yell at the top of your voice you want all muslims to die. Or walk into a police station and tell them you intend to blow them up. Lets see how free you are then.

Isn't that a bit like when Muslims hold up sign saying behead those who insult the prophet? I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 6:43pm:

I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims.

We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts.

Does that mean we should ban the Koran because people are threatened by its promotion of terrorism?

Muslims holding up signs saying behead people who insult the prophet undermine your efforts to reform the image of Islam among non-Muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 6:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts.

They know you are insincere so they ignore you.

We all see it.

You see it. You are just insincere and we all know it - them, us, everyone.

Frank wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 9:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 6:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts. They know you are insincere so they ignore you. We all see it. You see it. You are just insincere and we all know it - them, us, everyone.

We're all friends here, no?

Comparative religion 101, innit.

No...
No....

Now stop being stupid... another reason friendship is beyond you.

We live in a secular democracy in a largely Christian country.
Most Christians live capably within that... without allowing their religious beliefs to interfere in their everyday transactions with others etc.
Muslims do not.  Please explain?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 6:45pm: The 18C battle is about making hate speech acceptable, not protecting free speech[/url]  ::) ::) Whats the difference? Our society doesn't protect free speech - never has.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.  It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 6:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts.

Really...  I don't recall any Muslims at the Sydney riot/protest admonishing their fellow Muslims for what they were doing. :D

Grendel wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:24am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 6:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts. Really...  I don't recall any Muslims at the Sydney riot/protest admonishing their fellow Muslims for what they were doing. :D

Then you must have been living in a cave.

The national council of Imams called a press conference the next day to condemn it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2017 at 7:09pm: That is why Gandalf is afraid to list all the things he is not allowed to say. Am I? lets start with 'fire' in the cinema..

Then proceed directly to: Mohamed's God was a figment of his imagination, and the Koran is not the word of God. Brave enough to state that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 18th, 2017 at 8:24am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 6:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts. Really...  I don't recall any Muslims at the Sydney riot/protest admonishing their fellow Muslims for what they were doing. :D Then you must have been living in a cave. The national council of Imams called a press conference the next day to condemn it.

2 points....
1/ you did not refute my point so it still stands there were no Muslims there on the day admonishing their fellow muslims.
2/ According to many Muslims the Imams and so called leaders do not speak for them.

Sorry... 

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

Grendel wrote on Mar 18th, 2017 at 8:24am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 6:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 6:43pm: I believe you were among those insist we should deny them their right to promote this aspect of Shariah law. I expect it undermines your efforts to promote Islamic reform among non-Muslims. We should deny people the 'right' to threaten violence. And we usually do. Not sure how that undermines reform efforts. Really...  I don't recall any Muslims at the Sydney riot/protest admonishing their fellow Muslims for what they were doing. :D Then you must have been living in a cave. The national council of Imams called a press conference the next day to condemn it.

Is that how we "usually" deny people rights? By Muslims holding a press conference?

no.

Any other stupid questions?

Should we deny people the right to publish the Koran because it threatens violence?