Australian Politics Forum - Legal threats to F/D and myself

Acid Monkey

Gold Member

Offline

Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #30 - Jul 30^th, 2008 at 9:56pm

easel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 9:15pm:

Look at Scruffy Murphy's pub in Sydney. It is privately owned and operated, open to the public with no entry fees, yet, the staff can eject anyone they like, and the owner even took the steps of banning people of Middle Eastern appearance and Pacific Island appearance from entry.

Scruffy Murphy's? Lol. Sounds like an interesting pub. Is it Irish? I love a pint of Guiness on a warm Saturday afternoon.

I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance. There are reasonable conditions of entry which patrons must adhere to. As long as they are within the conditions then they have every right to be. Of course, reality isn't like that. That bouncers act in contravention to equality laws does not take away the fact that they have their rights. The pub is a private enterprise - true. However, their business is public and therefore subject to laws and rules that are in the public interest ie: racial and gender discrimination, public liability laws, public health laws, social responsibility rules etc.

Back to top

IP Logged

jordan484

Gold Member

Offline

Genuine Aussie

Posts: 1115

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #31 - Jul 30^th, 2008 at 10:00pm

"I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance."

Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked. I'm guessing this still occurs, I speak to the "young ones" today and they say the same thing.

Back to top

"We should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you." Richard Dawkins

IP Logged

Acid Monkey

Gold Member

Offline

Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #32 - Jul 30^th, 2008 at 10:36pm

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

"I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance."

Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked. I'm guessing this still occurs, I speak to the "young ones" today and they say the same thing.

Sure. However, by appearance I meant racial appearance in response to easel's comment.

The reasonable conditions of entry will cover other superfical appearances like the type of shoes, clothes, accessories etc and are subject to proprietor discretion.

Back to top

IP Logged

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself Reply #33 - Jul 30^th, 2008 at 10:49pm I suppose I was trying to say access to this website is a privilege and not a right, and someone who owns an institution, such as a pub or a website, should be allowed to prevent access to anyone for any reason.
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

oceanz

Gold Member

Offline

Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #34 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 10:53am

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:45pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 7:54pm:

I don't incite hatred, I tell it like I see it, if your opinion of your so called prophet differs from mine, you have no right to stifle my free speech. If what I say insults you, then so be it, but you have no right to make me respect the same things you do. Get over yourself, buddy.

Obviously you don't understand what I mean.

I have no problem with criticism of Islam or our Prophet, but in any form of dialogue, criticism should be done with respect.. Not respect for one's beliefs, you can have your opinion about it. But respect for those you are having dialogue with so that you can continue to have fruitful dialogue. Because without such respect for those you are having discussions with it ceases to be dialogue and then becomes something much worse.

Sprints behaviour reflected that.. I was very patient initially and clarified for him many times about issues which he kept bringing up, even after knowing the truth on the issues in an attempt to incite hatred and spread misinformation about Islam. It was obvious to everyone in the forums about that. I also asked that if he seriously and sincerely had the intention to have dialogue to do so with respect for those who he has dialogue with, otherwise it becomes impossible. He refused and kept heaping on the insults about our prophet and trying to incite hatred in Islam..

As mentioned many times, I was happy to have fruitful and meaningful dialogue with Sprint, but that requires an appropriate level of respect by both parties to achieve dialogue.. Sprint wasn't prepared to do that and it was obvious that instead his only intention was to incite hate of Islam and Muslims.

Had his intentions had been sincere and had he been more respectful in his dialogue then we could have had great dialogue with him. But he refused to.

If diplomats between nations behaved the way he did then there would be far more wars.

Look Malik. You need to go back to mecca/jeruseleum/disneyland or wherever the hell it is you are from..if you dont like our pple ,laws and country.

If we were in your country I could understand your indignant behaviour, we may even be beheaded for it..but here it is our laws and our proticols you that must observe...

Its seems you now have offended or our pple and protocols..you have gone to far-

With the wars brewing in the Middle East for so long now and the resulting effects on every countrys economy..there are bound to be pple who are sick to death of words like JIHAD-MOH-fu cking- HAMMAD and ISLAM- enough is enough.

Your welcome here if you are prepared to act like a regular member of this forum. You have to roll with the punches matey..thats a fact.

Harden up grow a backbone or you will be shown the door.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:00pm by oceanz »

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"

IP Logged

GSS

New Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #35 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 10:57am

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

easel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:46pm:

There is nothing wrong with calling Mohammed a pedophile. It's a definition.

Well, he was a paedophile, in todays definition. Plain and simple.

maybe it's offensive to muslims because ur using today's definition of a paedophile, and applying it to someone who lived 1400 years ago. rather than using the definition of paedophila that existed at the time.

similiarily if we use today's definition of a paedophile, and applied it to European royalty who lived a few hundred years ago, then we would also call them paedophile's as well.

pretty sure, European monarchists would find that offensive as well.

Back to top

IP Logged

jordan484 Gold Member Offline Genuine Aussie Posts: 1115	Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself Reply #36 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:06pm Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.
Back to top	"We should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you." Richard Dawkins IP Logged

GSS

New Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #37 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:13pm

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.

yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today.

but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context.

i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything.

Back to top

IP Logged

jordan484

Gold Member

Offline

Genuine Aussie

Posts: 1115

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #38 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:15pm

GSS wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:13pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.

yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today.

but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context.

i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything.

It strikes me as rather strange that, if he was who he claims, he could not have predicted how his behaviour would have been interpreted in years to come, if his teachings were to cross many ages and be relevant years from his time, then his behaviour should also have reflected this insight. One would have expected so much better from the spiritual leader he claims to have been.

Back to top

"We should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you." Richard Dawkins

IP Logged

GSS

New Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #39 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:34pm

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:15pm:

GSS wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:13pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.

yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today.

but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context.

i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything.

It strikes me as rather strange that, if he was who he claims, he could not have predicted how his behaviour would have been interpreted in years to come, if his teachings were to cross many ages and be relevant years from his time, then his behaviour should also have reflected this insight. One would have expected so much better from the spiritual leader he claims to have been.

but did he ever claim to know the future?

if not, then he wouldn't have been able to predict how his actions would be interpreted 1400 years later.....and he would only go with what was considered normal (or not unusual) at the time he lived.

Back to top

IP Logged

jordan484 Gold Member Offline Genuine Aussie Posts: 1115	Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself Reply #40 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 2:09pm If he didn't know how people would interpret his behaviour in the future, then why would he have thought any of his teachings would be relevant in the future?
Back to top	"We should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you." Richard Dawkins IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52824
At my desk.

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #41 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 2:16pm

As mentioned many times, I was happy to have fruitful and meaningful dialogue with Sprint, but that requires an appropriate level of respect by both parties to achieve dialogue..

Malik the most disrespectful thing anyone has done here is threatening frivolous lawsuits against people for speaking their mind. You went straight to the bottom. Say what you will about sprint, but he was willing to engage in dialogue and he created a lot of what you see here. You are destroying the dialogue.

If FD operates it as a public forum which I think he does(ie: it is accessible and unrestricted to the open public without membership or subscription) then Malik has a right to be here.

Not exactly. Just because it is accessible to the public does not mean everyone has a right to post here.

Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked.

Your dress, but not your race. Right?

but did he ever claim to know the future?

This is implicit in a religious 'prophet'. Otherwise, followers would just say that his teaching only applied to the time in question, and all the teachings would go out the window. According to Islam, marrying a prepubescent child is still acceptable today, as is slavery, under the appropriate conditions.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Acid Monkey

Gold Member

Offline

Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #42 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:00pm

I've always understood the prophet Muhammad to be "The Messenger from God". Islam recognises many prophets, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus etc. Many cannot divine the future.

My understanding of a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered the divine and serves as an intermediary with humanity.

Or, they could be non-corporeal beings that inhabit a Bajoran worm hole in the Alpha Quadrant.

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself Reply #43 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:17pm Christ Acid, if you start posting star trek stereotypes we could see the ferengi and klingons going at it big time, old gene was big on racial stereotyping, and it is pretty humourous when you watch it with that in mind.
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

GSS

New Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41

Re: Legal threats to F/D and myself
Reply #44 - Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:36pm

being a prophet doesn't necessarily mean u would know everything about the future........like knowing how people in Australia in the year 2008 would judge his actions.

knowing everything about the future, would be too much information for any human to bear.

rather, a prophet's knowledge of the future would only be limited to what God tells them about it......they wouldn't know more than that.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:44pm by GSS »

IP Logged