Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Does freedom have a meaning?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826

Message started by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:10pm

Title: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:10pm
From the thread "Is This What We Can Look Forward To? "



abu_rashid wrote on Jun 24th, 2012 at 3:02pm:
Muslims want to choose their own leaders, and have political freedom




abu_rashid wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Quote:
To me Islam is as Democracy is to you. You believe Democracy must be the foundation of the political system, and that parties which adopt the Democratic ideology can then compete on that platform.


Abu, you take it far further than that by insisting that Islam is democracy and is freedom. I don't try to tell you that our system of government is Shariah law and I consider it blatantly dishonest for you to attempt to argue the corollary.


What nonsense. I would never degrade the good name of Islam by associating it with these disastrous ideals of freedom and democracy.




abu_rashid wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 11:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Quote:
fd, I get that you're not the brightest spark, but come on. The word "freedom" by itself, without context is pretty meaningless. This argument reminds me of two people arguing over growing pumpkins. Because my pumpkin is bigger, therefore you never even grew a pumpkin


It has enough meaning. Can you give a context in which what you describe can justifiably be called political freedom? In what context are you "free" to criticise the government and pursue political change, if you can only promote Sunni Islam and only criticise the government from a basis of Sunni Islam? Also, how does this context differ from the context above where you openly rejected freedom and democracy in the name of Islam?


It's not different at all to the system you believe in, where only parties who espouse the democratic ideology are valid.

The sad thing is, you are in denial about it. At least I'm honest enough to admit the political ideology I  believe in admits no other ideology. You on the other hand delude yourself into thinking you have some kind of choice.




freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:05pm:
Or, if you want to do analogies, can you tell me what is wrong with this analogy?

I have a red car. Abu has a blue one:

FD: Look at my red car.

Abu: I also have a red car.

FD: Looks blue to me. This is what a red car looks like.

Abu: FOOL! You are working on the assumption that your car is 100% red. But your tyres are black. Therefor we both have red cars. We only differ in the extent to which our cars are red.

FD: Would you like a red car Abu?

Abu: Hell no! I hate red cars. I would only ever get a blue one.

FD: So that's why your car is blue.

Abu: I already explained that it is red. My concept of red merely differs from yours.

FD: Can you explain how your concept differs to the point that your blue car is red?

Abu: The term "red" is meaningless without context. Therefor I can use it to describe my car without misleading anyone.


The only thing I see here is the first sign of madness.


freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:05pm:
[quote]Several Muslims have not only been arrested but convicted and given lengthy gaol terms just for such things.


In Australia? Merely for criticising the government's foreign policy? Can you give examples?


Pretty much every single Muslim charged with "terrorism" offences has merely been a critic of the government and its policies. They have not actually been convicted of committing any act whatsoever, they merely thought or expressed ideas. Yet you think you live in a system that has unlimited political freedom. You're a dreamer.


freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Quote:
And what great crime exactly did they commit? How many people did they harm? Or perhaps they thought about such a thing right??? But Australia doesn't prosecute for thought crimes, no no no. fd, do you not see the linkage between this point and the previous one?


They did not merely think about committing terrorism. They actually started preparing an attack. None of this has anything to do with what you are allowed to say about the government.


Which of them actually prepared an attack? Some of them were convicted merely for asking what the Islamic ruling is on committing such acts. This was twisted into "seeking a fatwa to carry out the act", and then bang, half their life wasted in prison.... but never mind, we live in a country of unlimited political freedom, back to your little dreamworld fd. Nevermind the reality, keep ignoring it.[/quote]



freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:10am:

Quote:
It's not different at all to the system you believe in, where only parties who espouse the democratic ideology are valid.


Are you suggesting that parties are not allowed to run for office unless they 'espouse the democratic ideology'?

[quote]Pretty much every single Muslim charged with "terrorism" offences has merely been a critic of the government and its policies. They have not actually been convicted of committing any act whatsoever, they merely thought or expressed ideas.



Quote:
Some of them were convicted merely for asking what the Islamic ruling is on committing such acts.


Can you give an example of one from Australia? Do you realise that the example you gave is not from Australia and did not involve a conviction?[/quote]



abu_rashid wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:10am:

Quote:
It's not different at all to the system you believe in, where only parties who espouse the democratic ideology are valid.


Are you suggesting that parties are not allowed to run for office unless they 'espouse the democratic ideology'?


That's right, if a party stands on a platform of opposing the democratic ideology (of human legislation) and seeks to change this system to one of legislation by the laws of the almighty creator alone, then they would not be permitted to attain power in Australia, just as a party seeking to do the opposite would have no means to do so according to the Islamic system.


freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:10am:
[quote]Pretty much every single Muslim charged with "terrorism" offences has merely been a critic of the government and its policies. They have not actually been convicted of committing any act whatsoever, they merely thought or expressed ideas.


[quote]Some of them were convicted merely for asking what the Islamic ruling is on committing such acts.


Can you give an example of one from Australia? Do you realise that the example you gave is not from Australia and did not involve a conviction?[/quote]

I did not state it was from Australia. Learn to read more carefully. Why are you asking me to produce something, when I've asked you several posts ago now, to produce a case of Muslims who have been convicted here for actually being engaged in any act to commit harm to Australians. Clearly you cannot, hence your attempt to turn the questions around, without answering them (modus operandi for you isn't it?)[/quote]



freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Quote:
That's right, if a party stands on a platform of opposing the democratic ideology (of human legislation) and seeks to change this system to one of legislation by the laws of the almighty creator alone, then they would not be permitted to attain power in Australia, just as a party seeking to do the opposite would have no means to do so according to the Islamic system.


Do you mean that no-one would vote for them?

There is a very obvious mechanism Abu. If the majority of a population wants to destroy democracy and replace it with something else, then democracy is doomed, provided they can agree on what to replace it with. It is inevitable. Democracy is fragile.

[quote]I did not state it was from Australia.


No, but I have been asking you for examples from Australia for the last half dozen or so posts. And you have been claiming that we do not have these freedoms. I am Australian, and you claim to be Australian, despite having no idea what Australia is like.

So, do you have any examples from Australia? Are we in fact free to criticise the government's foreign policy in a way that Islam would never permit? Or are you suggesting that we are not allowed to criticise the government, but that no-one has ever actually done so, hence the lack of convictions?

Are you confusing the public condemnation of Islam and it's barbaric ways, with some kind of illegality to believe or promote Islam?


Quote:
Why are you asking me to produce something, when I've asked you several posts ago now, to produce a case of Muslims who have been convicted here for actually being engaged in any act to commit harm to Australians.


Because the argument is about whether we are free to criticise the government, not whether we are free to blow up busses. BTW, I did give an example.[/quote]

Title: Re: Does freedom mean have a meaning?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:12pm
I think this sums up western freedom.

Title: Re: Does freedom mean have a meaning?
Post by Morning Mist on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:41pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:12pm:
I think this sums up western freedom.



A trip to North Korea will make it clear to you what freedom in the West is.

Title: Re: Does freedom mean have a meaning?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:42pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 2:12pm:
I think this sums up western freedom.



A trip to North Korea will make it clear to you what freedom in the West is.

Different method same product.

Title: Re: Does freedom mean have a meaning?
Post by falah on Jul 1st, 2012 at 3:14pm
North Korea: media controlled by one megalomaniac

Australia: media controlled by three billionaire megalomaniancs

Logic? 3 megalomanics is better than 1

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 5:56pm
Puppet and Falah, do you believe that we are free to criticise the government in Australia? Would you prefer a system like Islam where you can get the death penalty for saying the wrong thing? Can either of you think of a context in which Islam can legitimately be described as political freedom? Am I breaking Australian law, as Abu suggests, by allowing you to promote Islam?

Or do you all equate being ignored by the majority and not getting your way with not being free to have an opinion?

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:10pm

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 5:56pm:
Puppet and Falah, do you believe that we are free to criticise the government in Australia? Would you prefer a system like Islam where you can get the death penalty for saying the wrong thing? Can either of you think of a context in which Islam can legitimately be described as political freedom? Am I breaking Australian law, as Abu suggests, by allowing you to promote Islam?

Or do you all equate being ignored by the majority and not getting your way with not being free to have an opinion?

Why punish people for criticising the government when it has no real effect anyway? As I have stated before we live in a smart and calculated dictatorship. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you don't need to do that stuff to have an effective dictatorship, in fact it makes it more effective in the long run.

But in saying that we do see a lot of examples of people being punished for speaking bad against the government.
The occupy protesters got the heads cracked in for example.

Most people dont even critcise the real problems anyway, its no skin of the governments shoulder if people are bickering about the stuff most people do.

If every started to critisice the real problems, much like occupy started to do then we would see more authoritarianism.

We have been on a downward spiral.
Freedoms are being removed ever so slowly, people are becoming ever more complacent and the chances of successfully challenging the real problems in our world are almost 0% now.

Where exactly do you get the idea that your views are of the majority? It would seem it is the exact opposite now a days.
Is there a poll or something?



Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:20pm

Quote:
The occupy protesters got the heads cracked in for example.


In Australia?


Quote:
If every started to critisice the real problems, much like occupy started to do then we would see more authoritarianism.


So the problem is not that we aren't free to say what we think, the problem is that people don't agree with you about what the problem is? Can you suggest what people might have to say in order to get the government to crack down on people speaking their mind?


Quote:
Freedoms are being removed ever so slowly


So what do you mean by freedom? Do you mean the non-freedom that Abu promotes? Would you prefer a system like Islam where you can get the death penalty for saying the wrong thing? Or are you one of those people who claim to support freedom but cannot bring yourself to criticise those who would take it away, unless it suits your political agenda?


Quote:
Where exactly do you get the idea that your views are of the majority?


What views in particular are you talking about? I am definitely in the majority here in supporting freedom and democracy. I would probably be in the majority in every country in the world.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:27pm

Quote:
In Australia?
Yes, in all western nations they were held.

Quote:
So the problem is not that we aren't free to say what we think, the problem is that people don't agree with you about what the problem is? Can you suggest what people might have to say in order to get the government to crack down on people speaking their mind?
How you equated what I said to that I will never know.

Quote:
So what do you mean by freedom? Do you mean the non-freedom that Abu promotes? Would you prefer a system like Islam where you can get the death penalty for saying the wrong thing? Or are you one of those people who claim to support freedom but cannot bring yourself to criticise those who would take it away, unless it suits your political agenda?
Freedom as in rights generally.
I don't know what Abu promotes.
As opposed to going to jail and being ass raped?

I do criticise what happens in other places, Islam being one example.
You are the only one here who cannot bring yourself to criticise those who would take it away, even when they steal it from right in front of you. You are the one who is blind to issues that impair you political agendas.


Quote:
What views in particular are you talking about? I am definitely in the majority here in supporting freedom and democracy. I would probably be in the majority in every country in the world.

You said..

Quote:
Or do you all equate being ignored by the majority and not getting your way with not being free to have an opinion?

So that would mean I am in the majority as well if its about wanting freedom and democracy.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:36pm
Puppet, the reason you think we live in a dictatorship is not because you aren't free to criticise the government (or would lose that freedom), but because you are incapable of convincing others of your views, whatever they are. Given that you won't even tell people what your views are, this is hardly surprising. Rather than acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong, you invent a grand conspiracy involving a dictatorship that doesn't actually oppress anyone and that let's their opposition openly compete against them, as if this is some kind of sneaky scheme to trick people into thinking they are free.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by falah on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:42pm

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 5:56pm:
Puppet and Falah, do you believe that we are free to criticise the government in Australia?


Can you explain to us the sedition law introduced by john Howard?

Western governments have shifty ways of dealing with people like Julian Assange, David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib, Bilal Khazal.

On 25 September 2009 the Supreme Court of New South Wales sentenced Bilal Khazal to 14 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 years for postin an article on the internet. He spent three years in jail before his conviction was overturned. He is hated by Western governments for producing the Nidaul Islam magazine cited by the FBI as the most radical in the Western world in the late 90's.


In 1996, Alfred Langer was jailed for attacking Australia's two-party duocracy:



Quote:
The story of Albert Langer

In 1996, Albert Langer was jailed for telling people how to vote. Langer was a member of the Neither! campaign, which argued that voters shouldn't have to direct their preferences to parties they didn't agree with. They said that voters could legally vote 1 for a party of their choice, and then put a 2 in each of the other boxes, thereby stopping their preferences from flowing on to the major parties when they didn't want them to. This was particularly aimed at supporters of minor parties, who might not want to see their votes ultimately go to Labor or the Coalition, as it usually does for all votes in the House of Representatives.

The Australian Electoral Commission wasn't very happy with this campaign. While it argued that Langer had the right to vote this way, he should not be encouraging others to do so. The Victorian Supreme Court ultimately agreed and then ordered that Langer be jailed for contempt of court when he continued his campaign after being ordered to stop. When Langer was sent to prison Amnesty International declared him Australia's first prisoner of conscience for more than twenty years, and called for his release.

In the end, Albert Langer only served three weeks of a ten week term because the Federal Court ruled the Victorian Supreme Court's sentence had been too severe.

AEC figures show that around 46 000 votes were exhausted during the 1996 House of Representatives election, an increase of over 500 percent on the number of exhausted votes in the 1993 election. Albert Langer thanked the AEC for the publicity his advocated method of voting received following the action taken against him.

The Electoral Act has since been amended. Section 240 was changed to say that voters need to number the boxes in order and without repeating any numbers.

Interestingly though, the section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has also been repealed. Instead the law now says it is only an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/albertlanger.htm



The Australian Government regularly bans entry to foreign speakers critical of the current system of government.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by falah on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:54pm
Democracy is just another method of oppression.

Democracy often equals oppression of minorities by the majority.

Recent examples:

*Burka ban in Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and France.
*Minaret ban in Switzerland.
*Circumcision ban in Germany
*Ban on polygamy in most Western countries.
*Bans on kosher and halal meat slaughter in Netherlands
*bans on ethnic minorities from joining elite military service in Singapore.
*people forced to take out car and businesss insurance in Australia.




There are some people on this forum that would argue that the majority has oppressed them in other ways:

*ban in Europe and Israel on questioning holocaust dogma



Let us remember that democratically elected governments:

*stole children from Aborigines in Australia
*stole land from native Americans in the USA
*persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
*steals land from Palestinians in Israel.




Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:58pm

Quote:
Can you explain to us the sedition law introduced by john Howard?


No. Can you?


Quote:
On 25 September 2009 the Supreme Court of New South Wales sentenced Bilal Khazal to 14 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 years for postin an article on the internet. He spent three years in jail before his conviction was overturned. He is hated by Western governments for producing the Nidaul Islam magazine cited by the FBI as the most radical in the Western world in the late 90's.


So the best example you can give is of someone who had their conviction overturned?


Quote:
In 1996, Alfred Langer was jailed for attacking Australia's two-party duocracy:


Another great example - the supreme court let him out after three weeks, he thanked the AEC for the publicity, and has succeeded in having many laws changed in his favour.

If that is the best you can come up with, it sounds more like the exception that proves the rule.

Falah, do you think that our system is dominated by two parties because people freely choose those two parties, or because we aren't free to choose the other parties?


Quote:
The Australian Government regularly bans entry to foreign speakers critical of the current system of government.


So Australians are not free because our freedoms are not extended to everyone in the world? Do you equate freedom with the absence of border control and no standards for who is allowed to enter the country?


Quote:
Democracy often equals oppression of minorities by the majority.


I suppose that is a good sign if you can at least tell the difference between democracy and freedom.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by falah on Jul 1st, 2012 at 7:57pm

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:58pm:

Quote:
Can you explain to us the sedition law introduced by john Howard?


No. Can you?



Quote:
Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005,[5] passed by the Upper House on 6 December 2005, repealed Sections 24A to 24E of the Crimes Act (1914) and reintroduced them, along with several new classes of offence, in a Division 80—Treason and sedition. Crimes in this division now attract a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment.
Seditious Intention

The definition of "seditious intention" originally in Section 24A has become (as amended):

An intention to effect any of the following purposes:

    (a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;

    (b) to urge disaffection against the following:

        (i) the Constitution;

        (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;

        (iii) either House of the Parliament;


    (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;

    (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

These new crimes are all punishable by Imprisonment for 7 years.



freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:58pm:

Quote:
On 25 September 2009 the Supreme Court of New South Wales sentenced Bilal Khazal to 14 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 9 years for postin an article on the internet. He spent three years in jail before his conviction was overturned. He is hated by Western governments for producing the Nidaul Islam magazine cited by the FBI as the most radical in the Western world in the late 90's.


So the best example you can give is of someone who had their conviction overturned?


As I said, Western governments have ways of persecuting people. He spent three years in prison. That is a long tiome for an innocent man to spend in jail.

Tony Abbott also made sure that Pauline Hanson was jailed.


Quote:
The Prime Minister, John Howard, was aware of a $100,000 clandestine trust fund set up by the Workplace Relations Minister, Tony Abbott, to bankroll legal action against Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663793191.html



Quote:
Bronwyn Bishop MHR said Hanson was a political prisoner, comparing her conviction with Robert Mugabe's treatment of Zimbabwean opponents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson#Fraud_conviction_and_acquittal



Quote:
In 1996, Alfred Langer was jailed for attacking Australia's two-party duocracy:




freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:58pm:
Falah, do you think that our system is dominated by two parties because people freely choose those two parties, or because we aren't free to choose the other parties?


Australians are brainwashed by media moguls to vote for the duocracy. The duocracy is also sel-perpetuated with corrupt funding:


Quote:
Parties for Democracy Program

...Funding of up to $1 million is provided annually under the programme to each of the Australian Labor Party and to the Liberal Party of Australia...

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2008-2009/The-Administration-of-Grants-under-the-Australian-Political-Parties-for-Democracy-Program




Quote:
Election funding

A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested. The amount to be paid is calculated by multiplying the number of votes obtained by the current election funding rate. The funding rate for the 2010 federal election was 231.191 cents per House of Representatives and Senate vote. This rate is indexed every six months to increases in the Consumer Price Index...

http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/index.htm



Quote:
Full list of federal MPs entitlements

..COMMUNICATIONS:

Printing allowance of $100,000 a year for Reps, $16,667 a year for senators for personalised stationery, newsletters, certificates, fridge magnets, postal vote applications and voting information.

Communications allowance to cover postage and costs of creating and maintaining a web site. Worth $27,500 a year for senators and about $40,000 a year for lower house members (50 cents for every enrolled voter in electorate).

Also given $1800 a year worth of stamps for their office at Parliament House.

Four telephones in the office, fax and answering machine.

Taxpayer-funded phone line, fax and answering machine at home.

Two mobile phones (one can be a Blackberry). Hands-free car kit on request for their private car.

Telephone services charge card

Phone numbers called by MPs are not listed on the bills paid by taxpayers.

A Post Office box at the nearest Post Office.

1300 toll free telephone number if their electorate covers more than one STD area.

TRAVEL IN AUSTRALIA:

Flights: No limit on number of business-class commercial flights. MPs who use charter flights when there is a commercial flight available must pay the difference.

Car with driver: COMCAR at their service when they are in Canberra, interstate on official business or to travel to and from the airport in their home city.

Private-plated vehicle: Every MP given a car from a list (typically a Holden, Ford or Toyota). MPs pay $711 a year and taxpayers pay all costs, including petrol, registration and servicing. Can be used for private and family reasons and can be driven by a staff member or family member.

MPs can choose to not have a car and get an allowance of $19,500 a year to pay for public transport and taxis.

Charter flights: Depending on the size of their electorate, MPs can spend between $9450 and $79,475 a year on charter flights or cars. Can be used by the MP, spouse or staff member...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/full-list-of-federal-mps-entitlements-20090521-bh0v.html


Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:10pm

Quote:
As I said, Western governments have ways of persecuting people. He spent three years in prison.


So you think the government wrongly convicts people then gets their conviction overturned as a deliberate ploy to persecute them? Wouldn't this effectively give the green light for people to do exactly what the government is trying to stop, at the same time as giving it lots of publicity? You are not making much sense Falah.


Quote:
Australians are brainwashed by media moguls to vote for the duocracy. The duocracy is also sel-perpetuated with corrupt funding:


What percentage do you think vote for the 'duocracy'? It looks to me more more like a fairly level playing field with many competing parties and ideologies, whose following reasonably reflects their popularity. Like puppet, you appear to be inventing a grand conspiracy to explain why everyone still disagrees with you (despite you kindly informing them they are brainwashed) and to avoid facing the possibility you are wrong.


Quote:
The duocracy is also sel-perpetuated with corrupt funding:



Quote:
Funding of up to $1 million is provided annually under the programme to each of the Australian Labor Party and to the Liberal Party of Australia...


Falah, do you realise that that money is to be spent on foreign projects?

Do you think it is corrupt for Senators and MPs to get paid and have their expenses covered in a transparent manner?

Aren't you merely demonstrating your freedom to criticise the government, no matter how absurd your criticism - something Abu thinks should not be allowed under Islam and that he insists is also not allowed in Australia?

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by abu_rashid on Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:47pm

falah wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:54pm:
Let us remember that democratically elected governments:

*stole children from Aborigines in Australia
*stole land from native Americans in the USA
*persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
*steals land from Palestinians in Israel.


Or the way democratic countries like Australia were built on the backs of slaves "indentured workers".

Pacific Islander Labourers Act was a way of disposing of the remainder of the 60,000 or so slaves the Australian founders had kidnapped and worked into the ground to build this "great nation".

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Morning Mist on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:11pm

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:47pm:

falah wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:54pm:
Let us remember that democratically elected governments:

*stole children from Aborigines in Australia
*stole land from native Americans in the USA
*persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
*steals land from Palestinians in Israel.


Or the way democratic countries like Australia were built on the backs of slaves "indentured workers".

Pacific Islander Labourers Act was a way of disposing of the remainder of the 60,000 or so slaves the Australian founders had kidnapped and worked into the ground to build this "great nation".


How many slaves did the Muslims and Arabs have? Muslims and Arabs can have slaves but Anglos cannot?

In reality, it was different times and therefore a different morality to today.

Just another chance to put the boot in Australia huh.


Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:16pm

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:47pm:

falah wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:54pm:
Let us remember that democratically elected governments:

*stole children from Aborigines in Australia
*stole land from native Americans in the USA
*persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
*steals land from Palestinians in Israel.


Or the way democratic countries like Australia were built on the backs of slaves "indentured workers".

Pacific Islander Labourers Act was a way of disposing of the remainder of the 60,000 or so slaves the Australian founders had kidnapped and worked into the ground to build this "great nation".


Abu were these things you said about freedom wrong? Do you still think we are not free to criticise the government in a way that Islam would never allow?


freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Quote:
That's right, if a party stands on a platform of opposing the democratic ideology (of human legislation) and seeks to change this system to one of legislation by the laws of the almighty creator alone, then they would not be permitted to attain power in Australia, just as a party seeking to do the opposite would have no means to do so according to the Islamic system.


Do you mean that no-one would vote for them?

There is a very obvious mechanism Abu. If the majority of a population wants to destroy democracy and replace it with something else, then democracy is doomed, provided they can agree on what to replace it with. It is inevitable. Democracy is fragile.

[quote]I did not state it was from Australia.


No, but I have been asking you for examples from Australia for the last half dozen or so posts. And you have been claiming that we do not have these freedoms. I am Australian, and you claim to be Australian, despite having no idea what Australia is like.

So, do you have any examples from Australia? Are we in fact free to criticise the government's foreign policy in a way that Islam would never permit? Or are you suggesting that we are not allowed to criticise the government, but that no-one has ever actually done so, hence the lack of convictions?

Are you confusing the public condemnation of Islam and it's barbaric ways, with some kind of illegality to believe or promote Islam?


Quote:
Why are you asking me to produce something, when I've asked you several posts ago now, to produce a case of Muslims who have been convicted here for actually being engaged in any act to commit harm to Australians.


Because the argument is about whether we are free to criticise the government, not whether we are free to blow up busses. BTW, I did give an example.[/quote]

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by abu_rashid on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:55pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:11pm:
In reality, it was different times and therefore a different morality to today.


It was only a century ago. Slavery was supposedly abolished. They were called "indentured workers".


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:11pm:
Just another chance to put the boot in Australia huh.


For such actions, more than a boot was deserved. That's despicable, and the same kind of mentality exists today amongst people like yourself.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Soren on Jul 4th, 2012 at 8:11pm


The pertinent point remains: freedom is a better ideal than sharia Islamism, as can be seen by comparing the best examples of when each is approximated in practice.

Places that come closest to the ideals of freedom and democracy are incomparably better in every respect than places that come closest to sharia-compliant Islamism.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 4th, 2012 at 9:09pm
Odd how Abu has gone so silent on the topic of freedom. Perhaps he is still trying to make up his mind about whether he rejects freedom or merely 'offers a different interpretation' of it.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Yadda on Jul 4th, 2012 at 10:04pm
Does freedom have a meaning?


FD,

What meaning does 'freedom' have, in a society where law courts commonly refuse to remove those convicted of criminal acts, from society ?   [.....or, e.g. where people guilty of negligent manslaughter walk free, or can 'suffer' 2-3 years of goal time - for effectively taking a life.]

In such a society, does 'freedom' then mean that anyone/everyone is free to do whatever they like ?


Another Q...
If generally law abiding citizens are forced to live among criminals, .....If criminals are allowed to live among law abiding citizens, do the law abiding citizens also enjoy 'freedom' ?

FD,

If 'freedom' is [effectively] a licence from all lawful restraint, what is the quality of such 'freedom' ?




+++

I think what i am trying to say is;

Wouldn't a society have a higher quality of living [and internal safety], if standards of justice and law and 'righteousness' among its citizenry were emphasised [and taught!], rather than an emphasis on the rights of citizens to enjoy their 'freedom' [i.e. a 'licence' to effectively, act as they wish, without consequences] ?

Doesn't the word freedom [and its 'sibling' word, liberty], traditionally imply a positive quality ???

In a society like Australia, where has that quality', of enjoying freedom, gone to ?

And why has it 'gone' ?




IMO, if societal standards [of truth, and law, and justice] are low, then a consequence of that, will be that the quality of the [real] 'freedoms' of citizens within that society will also be low.

IMO, we [Western societies] are suffering from the loss of [moral] values and [moral] standards, a loss, which we have whole heartedly embraced as a supposed 'positive' !


Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Yadda on Jul 5th, 2012 at 10:54am

Yadda wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

.....If criminals are allowed to live among law abiding citizens, do the law abiding citizens also enjoy 'freedom' ?

FD,

If 'freedom' is [effectively] a licence from all lawful restraint, what is the quality of such 'freedom' ?





WHAT MAINTAINS AND PROTECTS THE FREEDOMS OF A SOCIETY ???


A functioning justice system, in a society of men, will, of itself, protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of that society.

But there can be no quality, or 'amenity' in the concept of 'freedom' [or of 'rights' !], in a society which [effectively] chooses to widely ignore [and chooses to tolerate] criminality [i.e. oppression and injustice] in its midst.

Any culture of man which chooses to 'tolerate' lawlessness [i.e. oppression and injustice], will destroy itself, in that choice.

Lawlessness, is an antonym of the word 'culture'.

Dictionary;
antonym = = a word opposite in meaning to another.







Quote:
"IMO, if we join what is precious with what is vile, we do not in that act, 'improve' that which is vile.

We merely corrupt that which is precious.....

.....e.g.
I have two buckets.
The first bucket is full of clean, fresh water.
The second bucket is full of sewage.

Q.
If i pour both buckets into a third container, what do i get?

A.
A third container, full of diluted sewage.

Conclusion?
While i could safely drink from the 1st bucket, i could *not* safely drink from the 2nd bucket, or the 3rd container.

So it is with evil, that is 'tolerated' by good people.

No matter how many times we repeat the phrase, "Tolerance is good.",
...our tolerance of what is clearly evil, is not a virtue.

It is a process, a progression.

Yadda explains 'Universality' i.e. 'humanism'
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299665041/55#55

and...
an eye-opening analysis of terrorism in Europe
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444/30#30







Quote:
"I come back to my argument about the wisdom, of assuming, in this PC world, that it is ok for 'sheep' and 'wolves' to share the same 'meadow'."

the right to choose what to wear
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/151#151
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/158#158i
Quote:
"FD....

"I do not make assumptions about the actions of wolves, to justify the denial of the fundamental right of wolves to mingle with other creatures in the meadow. I would never seek to separate wolves from sheep, just because the suggestion has been made, that wolves might prey upon, and eat the sheep. Wolves should have the same rights as sheep do, to enjoy the meadow." "

ban all 'religious' clothing
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1303119265/103#103iQuote:
"I was merely pointing out that most men have always chosen to live in 'the society' of other men, being a notional 'controlled environment', living within a society governed by agreed laws.
Outside of such a controlled environment we have a lawless environment, where 'the law of the jungle' applies, where we expect the powerful and ruthless to prey upon the weak.
That is the difference between a society of savages, and a 'civilised' society, a society of laws.
Within a 'civilised' society, those who are powerful and ruthless are NOT permitted to prey upon the weak."

Enlightenment values seen as 'had right'
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1325550886/107#107





Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jul 5th, 2012 at 11:07am

freediver wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Puppet, the reason you think we live in a dictatorship is not because you aren't free to criticise the government (or would lose that freedom), but because you are incapable of convincing others of your views, whatever they are. Given that you won't even tell people what your views are, this is hardly surprising. Rather than acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong, you invent a grand conspiracy involving a dictatorship that doesn't actually oppress anyone and that let's their opposition openly compete against them, as if this is some kind of sneaky scheme to trick people into thinking they are free.

This is incorrect strawman.

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Morning Mist on Jul 5th, 2012 at 11:24am

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:11pm:
In reality, it was different times and therefore a different morality to today.


It was only a century ago. Slavery was supposedly abolished. They were called "indentured workers".


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 9:11pm:
Just another chance to put the boot in Australia huh.


For such actions, more than a boot was deserved. That's despicable, and the same kind of mentality exists today amongst people like yourself.


Spare me your righteousness and hypocrisy.

Islam means submission, submission to Allah and all his laws. That's smacking slavery right there. Today in the West there is nothing remotely close to the slavery of old or the Islamic servitude found in the East (other than those who voluntarily submit to it).






Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Elvis Wesley on Jul 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm
Islams role in slavery

http://takimag.com/article/islams_role_in_slavery_jim_goad#axzz1zcmGkLKS

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by falah on Jul 5th, 2012 at 12:28pm
There are many verses in the Bible about taking slaves. Probably that is why Christians enslaved so many millions of people over the centuries and sent them to Brazil, Caribbean and USA.



The Quran, on the other hand, encourages the freeing of slaves.


The truth about Islam can be found here:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/94840

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by freediver on Jul 5th, 2012 at 12:33pm
Yadda:

I
Quote:
f 'freedom' is [effectively] a licence from all lawful restraint, what is the quality of such 'freedom' ?


No. As an ideal it limits lawful restraint to the natural limits of freedom. That is, your freedom and human rights end where another person's begins. Your freedom to swing your arms ends at another person's nose. This is where you references to law come in.


Quote:
IMO, we [Western societies] are suffering from the loss of [moral] values and [moral] standards, a loss, which we have whole heartedly embraced as a supposed 'positive' !


Who has embraced it? I haven't. You haven't.


Quote:
This is incorrect strawman.


Puppet, can you offer a better interpretation of your claims here? Your argument is a common theme among extremists - that the majority of people only disagree with you because they are all deluded, or the government is tricking them, or they are not free to think the way you do but do not realise they lack this freedom.


Quote:
The Quran, on the other hand, encourages the freeing of slaves.


And yet it took foreign interference from Christian Europe to finally abolish slavery in the middle east. The fact is that if you legalise slavery as Islam does, you make it inevitable, no matter how much you tell people it is nice to free the slaves.

Falah, do you think that the biblical story of the freeing of the Jews from slavery encourages or discourages slavery?

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jul 5th, 2012 at 1:58pm

falah wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 12:28pm:
There are many verses in the Bible about taking slaves. Probably that is why Christians enslaved so many millions of people over the centuries and sent them to Brazil, Caribbean and USA.



The Quran, on the other hand, encourages the freeing of slaves.


The truth about Islam can be found here:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/94840



From your same website falah-


Quote:
Islam allows a man to have sexual intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/10382/slave


When doing your dawaganda you might attract more men to Islam if you point out muslim men can have sex slaves along with 4 wives.

If Islam is against slavery why does an Islamic website say in 2012 that sex slaves are halal for muslim men?

Title: Re: Does freedom have a meaning?
Post by Yadda on Jul 8th, 2012 at 2:07am

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

falah wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 12:28pm:
There are many verses in the Bible about taking slaves. Probably that is why Christians enslaved so many millions of people over the centuries and sent them to Brazil, Caribbean and USA.



The Quran, on the other hand, encourages the freeing of slaves.


The truth about Islam can be found here:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/94840



From your same website falah-


Quote:
Islam allows a man to have sexual intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/10382/slave


When doing your dawaganda you might attract more men to Islam if you point out muslim men can have sex slaves along with 4 wives.


If Islam is against slavery why does an Islamic website say in 2012 that sex slaves are halal for muslim men?





Baronvonrort,

The fact that that particular ISLAMIC website projects two contradictory concepts [of how ISLAM regards human 'slavery'] is a very good example of the duplicitous nature of ISLAM [and of moslems, who choose to adopt ISLAM's tenets].

i.e.
Where it serves ISLAM's interests [e.g. recruitment], ISLAM will present itself as pro-slavery.

And where it serves ISLAM's interests ["ISLAM is virtuous."], ISLAM will present itself as anti-slavery.

Dictionary;
duplicity = =
1 deceitfulness.
2 the quality of being double.



Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.