I just saw this cartoon which made me think how it feels when I am arguing with FD, like we did in the "ban faith schools" thread.

She espouses my thoughts.
We are fools.


"IF we conducted an audit of civil liberties, the result would go something like this. If you are an alleged terrorist detained at Guantanamo Bay, suspected of waging murderous jihad against the West, you can count on a certain class of vocal Westerners defending your right to a fair trial. Fair enough. But if you’re a right-wing commentator who publishes views that may offend the feelings of a minority group, don’t count on much support for your rights: your right to free speech or your right to a fair trial. Go figure.
Before we nut out that grotesque hypocrisy, it’s worth considering whether the US Supreme Court’s decision last week is the terrific win it appears to be for terrorism suspects. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that foreign terrorism suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US courts. In balancing the principles of civil liberties and national security, not all judges agreed the rights of Gitmo detainees should prevail. Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”
As The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto noted, for all the wailing about the evils of Gitmo, “perhaps decades from now we will learn that detainees ended up being abused in some far-off place because the Government closed Guantanamo in response to judicial meddling. Even those who support what the court did today may live to regret it.”
And as Chief Justice John Roberts concluded, the majority’s decision was no win for democracy. Stripping Congress of power, the American people lost “a bit more control over the conduct of this nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges”.
For now, though, supporters of the Supreme Court decision have celebrated it as a grand victory for civil liberties. In triumphant tones they cite the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” Perhaps the champions of the civil liberties of detained terrorism suspects could cast their eyes over another trial involving a different civil liberty. It’s too bad that “in extraordinary times”, the right to free speech has been on one heck of a speedy downward trajectory.
In Canada, columnist Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine have been hauled in front of British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal. They have been accused of “flagrant Islamaphobia” after the magazine ran extracts from Steyn’s best-selling book American Alone. The book explores the West’s demographic challenges arising from different birthrates of Muslims and non-Muslims. Some Muslims were outraged by such talk and by Steyn’s reference to a Norwegian imam who said that Muslims bred “like mosquitoes”.
You could not make this stuff up if you tried. It’s a show trial. Canadian human rights tribunals have a 100 per cent conviction rate on so-called “hate speech” cases. BC’s tribunal can order Maclean’s to stop publishing Steyn’s articles and, indeed, any other articles likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.
Think about that. Pre-emptive state censorship means that opinions about Islam’s relationship with the West have effectively been banned because they offend some Muslims.
Pumped-up activists are wasting no time in exploiting Canada’s feeble appeasement. Khurrum Awan, one of the main witnesses against Maclean’s, told the Canadian Arab Federation last week that the Canadian press needed more Muslim voices instead. Muslims had to “demand that right to participate” in the national media, Awan said. “And you know what, if you’re not going to allow us to do that, there will be consequences. You will be taken to the human rights commission, you will be taken to the press council, and you know what? If you manage to get rid of the human rights code provisions (on hate speech), we will then take you to the civil courts system. And you know what? Some judge out there might just think that perhaps it’s time to have a tort of group defamation, and you might be liable for a few million dollars.”
And you know what? Don’t count on this being a wacky ambit claim. The West is falling over itself to accommodate even the most precious and perverse sensibilities of minorities. As Steyn said, “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.” The result is a chilling restriction of free speech.
Here in Australia, NSW Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC has been quick to defend Australia’s hate speech laws as a justifiable limitation on free speech. But remember where hate speech laws take us. A few years ago, two Christian pastors were taken to court under the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act for vilifying Muslims for criticising aspects of Islam. While the case was tossed out on appeal, why were these two men hauled over the legal coals in the first place for simply voicing concerns about Islam? "

To be contd

Here is another link to an opinion piece from the alternative news site, 'alternet' , I know it is seen as a counterpoint to the more conservative biased news sources, but it does have some good stuff on it, you just need to use your personal judgement.
The author does address the conservatives' attempt to portray this ruling as diminishing safety for America, so may address your concerns in that regard.


http://www.alternet.org/rights/88402/?page=1

Mozzaok - I value different viewpoints.
Feel free to post portions of that article here.


Securing the law abiding public from islamics is paramount.
Those that wish to destroy OUR freedom do not merit any "benefits" from it.
Be assured, they hate us and want to kill us all.
Their "learned" clerics encourage them on.
Their families take pride in them.

Hi King Billy,

How are you ? Good to have you here.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 11:05am:


Yep, all 1.6 billion of them - every single one of them hate us. A llittle paranoid, sprint?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 9:46am:


Yep, a win but a narrow one. It could have easily gone the other way. It shows that the US are not totally ready to accept it yet.

That is pretty offensive Malik, Sprint is a decent good hearted person, and would probably not retaliate to your insult, because of his basic decency, but I am happy to tell you to pull your head in.

I disagree with Sprint on lots of issues, and we have had many spirited debates on the old Cracker site, before it got destroyed by the bean counters, but I never doubted his sincerity or his willingness to try and see the other guys point of view, which are two admirable qualities.

I think he has fallen for the NeoCon trap of making Islam the big 'Bad Guy', who they, 'The Sheriff' must be allowed any means to fight.
In this scenario, both sides have the same agenda, to curtail the rights of the individual, and that is why I am no fan of either extreme.


You know full well that I am no fan of many Islamic teachings and cultural practices, but I also do not fall for the con that the Bush government is trying to pull on the world.

Ironically, both sides, The Fundamentalist muslims, and the Bush NeoCons, have a similiar belief that the liberalisation of society is a negative force that must be subverted, at all costs.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:


Sprint's behaviour is disgusting, he's the type of mindless drone that if he were to have lived in Nazi Germany. He'd have made Hitler proud by dobbing in Jews to be taken away to concentration camps and then gassed.

Sprint also fails to see and consider the implications of taking away habeus corpus and doesn't realise that ANYONE can be deemed an enemy non-combattant, regardless who they are by the President. That means it's no longer a democracy, it means you are living under the good graces of a tyrant who can have you sent to Guantanamo and listed as a terrorist at ANY point. It takes away ALL of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers had intended to protect the people from living under the tyranny that they themselves had fought and many died to change.

Sprint would easily fall into the traps of fighting the terrorists by becoming terrorists. By going against every single democratic value we have here. The right to be innocent before proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, the right to safety without being tortured for a confession etc.

We're better than that, Sprint is the one who needs to pull his head in.

Nazi's, Al Qaeda, NeoCons, they're all the same extremists they only live under different names.

I agree that his understanding of this issue is very limited, and I believe his stance is wrong in supporting the curtailing of the rights at law for all people.
This however does not give you the right to personally vilify him.

Nah, that's fine !! Call me whatever you want.
Not a problem, water off a ducks back.

How do we know they are terrorists or sympathisers?
Often it is pretty easy, they have stated their support publically.
They may frequent sites that support terrorism, download information.
Terrorists themselves have weapons, plans, documentation to cause terror.


I see it as being akin to treason.


Whatever I have said about mohammad is entirely backed up by quotes from the koran or hadiths.

mohammad married and shagged a minor - that makes him a paedophoile nowadays.

mohammad waged war on and murdered MANY people - that makes him a murderer

mohammad incited and rejoiced in the assassaination of others - that makes him an assassain.



looking at a site and downloading pics of paedophllic behaviour is a crime.
Same law could easily apply to terrorism, it should.
The intention to commit crime is a crime in itself, same does apply to terrorism, and should be treated with severley.

Or, are you changing your tact on terrorism ???


Innocent people of a peaceful country in a time of peace merit MUCH more protection than some terrorist that wants to blow their bodies apart when they are commuting to work on a train.

There are a LOT of sympathesisers who know of these plans before it becomes reality.
They are ALL guilty.

Unless you want caliphate and are so extreme to do anything for it you would agree.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 11:34am:


We have to be very careful about this type of attitude.  Looking at pictures of child pornography is a crime, but it is not the crime of raping a child.

Diasgreeing with the current form of governement and wishing it to end is not the crime of treason.

While most crimes require the element of intent (mens rea), mens rea in itself is not a crime.

Mens Rea must be accompanied by a guilty act or an attempt at a guilty act (actus reas) to be a crime.

To contemplate robbing a bank is not illegal.  To gather people together and plan to rob a bank is (consipiarcy), but the gathering of people and the planning is the actus reas.

A single individual can dream about such things as much as they like.  They can even prepare to rob the bank themselves, but as long as they do not do the guilty act, there is no crime. 

Recent changes to law to try and make mens rea itself a crime is an abuse of human rights.

Bill

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 30^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

There is of course one thing you're missing Sprint, many Christians hold that Mary had other children with Joseph after Jesus was born, peace be upon them all. That would have made Joseph a pedophile according to your own logic and standards.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2008 at 3:05pm:

Freediver, With respect, Sprint insults Islam, Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh at will and no one stops him from doing that. I have reported several pictures that he has posted up here which have been incredibly insulting to Islam and nothing has been done about them.

In addition to that the comments I made about Sprint are true, he is a hypocrite, he acts like a mindless drone, his behaviour is disgusting. Those are all true statements and can be seen by his own comments.

So I'm actually not insulting him, I'm saying the way he is acting.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2008 at 7:08pm:

I still think truth is an acceptable defence.. If we put sprint's comments up in front of a panel who are sound of mind and educated they'd all agree..

1) We are not going to convene a panel of sound minds every time you decide to insult someone. If we did, they would not be on your side.

2) Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

3) Saying sprint is a drone, saying he cannot think for himself, and saying he is not intelligent enough to have a conversation with are not matters of truth. They are matters of opinion. They are insults. If you tried to make them matters of truth, you would clearly be in the wrong.

That's fine malik. Say what you like about me or my beliefs.


As an Aussie, you should know everything is up for questioning.
This is a free society with free speech on the net.

Your sensitivities about untoward comments of mohammad are your issues.
If any leader can't be questioned, there is something seriously amiss about any such belief.
If the followers cannot accept comments, they are a danger to us all for our freedom of speech.


islam is not a belief, it is a spiritual straight jacket.
In history only one country has escaped from the insanity of islam, Spain.
It is much bettter for us to ban all terrorists, sympathisers and texts that promote such antisocial behaviour.

We owe our kids freedom, not a place where they cannot say "Mohammad is a peadophile" for the knowledge they will be beheaded.

The unwavering fanatical constant total support you show for mohammad and islam speak much about most muslims.

What is islams goal ?

islam is not just a religion.
it is a dogma that enslaves all who are trapped by it
it is the legal system, the social system, a mindset over all within it.

it kills, subdues or smothers all who oppose it.
those that follow it become single minded morons unable and unwilling to be free.

What is islams goal ??

To be fair, I doubt if any 'Religion' can have a goal, per se, after all, they are all constructs of men, and subject to the foibles of men.

We have many adherents who claim to believe their dogma is inspired by, and directly handed down, from a supreme being, which is so obviously ridiculous, because of their innumerable fallacies, but most obviously because of the fact that no religious text is ever agreed upon.

I have said it before, any supreme being, who cannot even get an instruction manual right, has no legitimate claim to be worshipped, hell, they probably wouldn't even get a job at IKEA, if they cannot even get the instructions right.

The Abrahamic religions are the worst transgressors of this rationality boundary, and they have been at each others' throats, ever since their relative inceptions.

It is relatively easy for us to dismiss the wackiness of newcomers like scientologists, whose founder was noted for his B-Grade science fiction novels, and his quote that, "starting your own religion is where the really big money is".

However, the historical, water under the bridge, the millions of lives sacrificed to the meaningless worship of these gods, all human creations, and notably always in their own very human image,  tends to gather a momentum of it's own, and any relevant truth is long lost.

Religion can be a great comfort and inspiration for many people, through it's role in their personal spiritual development, and I am happy with that.
What I am not happy with, is when religion seeks to set the standards by which a society lives, this is when they cross the line, this is what I cannot abide.

Christianity took on this role for a very long time, and it really only released it's control in that area in recent history, and I think we are the better for it.

What concerns me about our current experience of Islam, is that they have not reached that point, they are firmly wedded to imposing their standards onto the broader community, and that is something that deserves to be opposed.

malik - so according to you secular govts are the cause of most bloodshed.
And christian ones are terrible too.
The only good one is an ....... islamic one !!!!!!!!!!


scratch a muslim, find an islamic fundamentalist.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 7:23pm:


I doubt that. Most of the major wars in the last 100 years were not secular. Oh wait, you think Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq are all wars about imposing Christianity.

Are you for real?

You make outlandish false claims, and then say oh, that's they way sprint thinks so I'm going to use it to.

You yourself have called sprint a fundamentalist and implied he was narrow minded and stupid.

Are you these things also?

Wow, just like primary school name calling. If you think so lowly of him, as previously posted, why would you stoop to his level?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 9:25pm:


Is what you wrote to me. Which is laughable, as we already discussed. We have not had a Christian Holy War for a looooooong time. Muslim holy wars? All very recent.

easel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 9:00pm:

No, it's not laughable at all. You apply similar standards to Islam that sprint does. Tell me, do you honestly think a good Christian would have fought in any of those wars unless he thought he was doing what God expected of him?

easel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 9:26pm:

If you say Islam is inherently violent then Christianity is also as inherently violent according to your own logic, because God ordered the other Prophets pbut to go and kill in his name.

In the bible Jesus pbuh also ordered his desciples to sell their clothes and tools and buy swords instead to protect themselves from those who came to get Jesus pbuh, indicating that they had the right to defend themselves should they be attacked.

And the Hebrew translation for your commandment there is thou shalt not MURDER, not thou shalt not kill.

Murder is if you had no valid reason to kill, but killing is much broader and can be justified.

Islam forbids killing innocent people, yet Al-Qaeda does it all the time, so they arent' particularly religious then aren't they?

The Qur'an states:

005.032
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 9:57pm:


Thank you FD, I couldn't have put it any better myself.

May God reward you

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 10:24pm:

Thank you Acid Monkey,

This is what I mean, can people like Sprint and others hold Christianity up to the same standards they judge Islam by?

Obviously not.