Australian Politics Forum - the threats posed by Islam

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #105 - May 25^th, 2013 at 10:17pm

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Self censorship is a reasonable course of action?

Absolutely. Its called being responsible gatekeepers of the infomation available. News rooms have to make these calls all the time - deciding whether its responsible to potentially inflame volatile relationships between groups by publishing contentious material.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Publishing the Muhammed cartoons would not stoke the "anti Muslim flames".

I disagree. The bomb in the turban cartoon made pretty clear insinuations about the entire muslim community.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Covering riots and terrorism would.

err care to explain that one? Seems to contradict your previous theories about the muslim community putting a lid on further activity whenever bad press about muslim activity comes along. Wanting to be more "calculated" - remember that?

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

If Jews reacted the same way whenever people mocked them, it would be all over the news too.

OK FD, try and get a picture of a jew with a giant hook nose and locks in his hair, hovering menacingly over a defenseless girl and stealing her money - published in any mainstream publication. Let me know how you go with that one Grin

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the just consequences.

FD if you get punished for doing something, it generally means you were not allowed to do it in the first place. Hate speech laws mean you are not allowed to do hate speech.

But my point was, whether it crosses the legal boundary or not, the mere existence of these limits to freedom of speech reflects an ideal that exists in our society that says total carte blanche in regards to free speech is undesirable. And the attitudes of the western (non-muslim) public to the cartoon incident backs up this point - where a significant proportion of the population - if not an outright majority - believed that the publishing of the cartoons was wrong and irresponsible.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

We as a society also understand that mocking Islam and mocking Muhammed is absolutely protected by freedom of speech

Its not as clear cut as you claim. As I said, we have laws against vilification, and determining what is acceptable free expression and what is vilification/hate speech can be incredibly hard to decipher.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

There is no grey area.

Oh there absolutely is. You couldn't be more wrong.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

You do not have the right not to be offended.

No, but you absolutely have a right not to be intimidated or vilified.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Our society mocks religions and ideologies all the time. No-one condemns it.

No one condemns it? You must be joking.

And you are wrong about the public's attitude to the cartoons. Look up the polls if you don't believe me. But even beside the surveys, such a claim is ridiculous if you had any idea about the debate that roared about the publications of the cartoons: it wasn't a case of non-muslims united against the muslims - the debate in the west was entirely between non-muslims who supported the publications and those non-muslims who opposed it. You can't possibly sit there with a straight face and claim there was no significant western non-muslim opposition to the cartoons.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Again, not a violation of freedom of speech. It is a demonstration of it.

Exactly FD!! Jews can condemn free speech and call it a demonstration of free speech - *JUST LIKE* muslims can condemn free speech (eg cartoons mocking the prophet), and happily call it a demonstration of free speech.

THANK YOU for finally agreeing with me on this. Though I don't quite understand why you went through all those shenanigans before of labeling peaceful protests against prophet mocking videos and cartoons as an "attack" and a "threat" to freedom of speech.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #106 - May 26^th, 2013 at 12:58am

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:10am:

And fair enough too - we all know what happens when the western world gets worked up about the jews. Its about being responsible - and a sensible and responsible media will be all too aware of the potential for stirring up bigotry and discrimination against minorities - such as jews or muslims.

Muslims are trying to assume the jews' mantle of victimhood but it doesn't work.

No Jews have ever staged week-long car-b-ques, public beheadings of critics, violent demonstrations calling for the murder of anyone disrespecting Moses.

Haven't been following the news much from the Occupied Territories for the last 20 years have you Soren? Roll Eyes

Jews regularly shoot Muslims. Jews regularly destroy Muslim property. Jews regularly steal Muslim land and water. Jews regularly deny services to Muslims because of their religion. Jews regularly harass Muslim children. Jews regularly blow up Muslims. Roll Eyes

Oh, I see. Joos are not allowed to defend temselves.

There is substantial difference between defence and attack, Soren and the Jewish settlers within the Occupied Territories are attacking the Muslim Palestinians. They regularly harass them and their children. They destroy their orchards, steal their land and water.

Quote:

They should go meekly as always up until the foundation of Israel.
The Arabs could have had peace but they chose, because of Islam, to try to destroy the Joos.

So, the Muslims aren't allowed to defend themselves against this imposed alien land which the UN created without consultation?

Quote:

Look at the map after first and second world wars. How many people were displaced, how many new countries were created, how many old countries have disappeared.

It is only the Arabs who can't digest the existence of one tiny country because it is Jewish. Half of the middle east is successor states to the Ottoman Empire. But that's OK because they remained 'Muslim Lands'. That's the rub.

Appears you forget, those successor states' borders were created by three fat men crawling around the floor, making maps with red pencils, without consultation nor consideration of the realities of life in the Middle East, Soren.

So, where is Kurdistan? Why wasn't it created?

You also forget that those three fat men decided that those successor states would become parts of their empires and not truly independent.

They laid the seeds of a great deal of the conflict in the world which still exists today. Hence the cliche, "never allow fat men to draw lines on maps while crawling around on the floor..." Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #107 - May 26^th, 2013 at 1:02am

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:40pm:

Israel is a member country of the UN. It is defending itself. If the Arabs could think past the Koran they would than Allah to have the Jews have come back to the Middle East. Israel is the Arabs' best chance to catch up with the world. But what do they do? They are cutting of their own noses to spite themselves, to coin a phrase.

I actually agree with that, Soren but I also understand that Israel was imposed on the Palestinians without consultation as a salve to the consciences of the West after the complicity in the Holocaust.

The Jews have been engaged in ethnic cleansing ever since the creation of Israel. They have been colonising Palestinian territory since 1967. Muslims are treated as second-class citizens within Israel and third class humans in the Occupied Territories.

Should this be ignored? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #108 - May 26^th, 2013 at 1:04am

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Soren, Israel is conducting activity that is illegal under international law. No country in the world except the US, Australia and the Marshall Islands even pretends to dispute this.

And no, expanding housing lots further into Palestinian territory, destroying olive plantations for bypass roads and denying the Palestinians a fair share of the precious water resources - has nothing to do with "defending itself".

And anyone who is familiar with the issue knows that you can never raise these grievances without being branded an anti-semite and/or terrorist supporter.

What is 'Palestinian territory'?

The areas governed by the Palestinian Authority. Formerly known as the "Occupied Territories" or "The West Bank", they are now recognised as "Palestine" by most countries on a defacto basis. De Jure recognition is fast approaching.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47433
At my desk.

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #109 - May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am

Gandalf, could you please clarify whether your support for freedom of speech extends to newspapers publishing the Muhammed cartoons and TV stations airing the youtube video? You also claimed that most Australian Muslims support freedom of speech in principle, but have refused to elaborate since then. Could you please clarify the textent to which you think "mainstream Australian Muslims" support freedom of speech?

Quote:

Absolutely. Its called being responsible gatekeepers of the infomation available. News rooms have to make these calls all the time - deciding whether its responsible to potentially inflame volatile relationships between groups by publishing contentious material.

Other than Muslims, what groups would be potentially violent over a similar cartoon or video?

Quote:

I disagree. The bomb in the turban cartoon made pretty clear insinuations about the entire muslim community.

You miss the point gandalf. People make insinuations all the time. This does not lead to violence. The Muhammed cartoons and the youtube video did not cause people to attack Muslims. Quite the opposite. It caused Muslims to kill over 200 and over 45 people respectively. That is what causes people to react against Muslims. Not the cartoons, not the video, but Muslims killing people and acting like neanderthals. The media self censors based on what they think Muslims might kill them or others over, not based on what they think people will attack Muslims over. There is no need for the latter, only the former.

Quote:

Seems to contradict your previous theories about the muslim community putting a lid on further activity whenever bad press about muslim activity comes along. Wanting to be more "calculated" - remember that?

No it doesn't, but feel free to elaborate.

Quote:

But my point was, whether it crosses the legal boundary or not, the mere existence of these limits to freedom of speech reflects an ideal that exists in our society that says total carte blanche in regards to free speech is undesirable.

It is not even possible Gandalf. Different freedoms and rights conflict with each other. That is the justification for limitations on them. However, deciding where to balance the competing rights and freedoms is a long way from Muslims insisting we should not mock Muhammed or Islam. Nor is it a rejection of freedom or human rights.

Quote:

And the attitudes of the western (non-muslim) public to the cartoon incident backs up this point - where a significant proportion of the population - if not an outright majority - believed that the publishing of the cartoons was wrong and irresponsible.

Can you back this up?

Quote:

Its not as clear cut as you claim. As I said, we have laws against vilification, and determining what is acceptable free expression and what is vilification/hate speech can be incredibly hard to decipher.

In this case it is incredibly simple. You do not have the right not to be offended. It is so simple that in the case of the youtube video Barak Obama spoke up in defense of freedom of speech. Neither the Muhammed cartoons nor the video are grey areas.

Quote:

No, but you absolutely have a right not to be intimidated or vilified.

Do the Muhammed cartoons intimidate or vilify you? Did the Muslims who marched through Sydney with the banners calling for people to be beheaded get arrested? If I felt intimidated by Islam could I claim that the existence of Islam violates my right to not be intimidated? No country that takes freedom of speech seriously would outlaw either the cartoons or the video and to suggest this is a grey areas merely demonstrates how out of touch you are.

Quote:

And you are wrong about the public's attitude to the cartoons. Look up the polls if you don't believe me. But even beside the surveys, such a claim is ridiculous if you had any idea about the debate that roared about the publications of the cartoons: it wasn't a case of non-muslims united against the muslims - the debate in the west was entirely between non-muslims who supported the publications and those non-muslims who opposed it. You can't possibly sit there with a straight face and claim there was no significant western non-muslim opposition to the cartoons.

Obviously with Islam people debate it. This is because over 200 people were murdered by Muslims in response to the cartoons. This proves my point really - that Islam is a genuine threat to freedom of speech. But did The Life of Brian, or Piss Christ generate serious controversy over the limits of freedom of speech?

Quote:

Exactly FD!! Jews can condemn free speech and call it a demonstration of free speech

Calling you an anti-semite is not an attack on freedom of speech, any more than Brian Ross whining about me being a bigot is an attack on freedom of speech. On the other hand, murdering 200 people over a cartoon is an attack on freedom of speech. Can you see the difference?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47433
At my desk.

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #110 - May 26^th, 2013 at 9:56am

Quote:

*JUST LIKE* muslims can condemn free speech (eg cartoons mocking the prophet), and happily call it a demonstration of free speech.

None of my criticism was of Muslims merely "comdeming" the cartoons. My criticism was of Muslims murdering 200 people in response to the cartoons. It was of Muslims introducing legislation in European parliaments, the EU and the UN in attempts to criminalise blasphemy. It was of Muslims marching through Sydney with placards calling for people who insult Muhammed to be beheaded. Can you see the difference?

Quote:

THANK YOU for finally agreeing with me on this. Though I don't quite understand why you went through all those shenanigans before of labeling peaceful protests against prophet mocking videos and cartoons as an "attack" and a "threat" to freedom of speech.

The shenanigans are entirely attributable to you misunderstanding the opening post and taking 8 pages to get your head around it. You still don't appear to understand the issue. You spent most of the thread trying to change the subject to whether Muslims want violence or peace and avoiding giving any clarification on their support for freedom of speech.

Brian:

Quote:

The Jews have been engaged in ethnic cleansing ever since the creation of Israel. They have been colonising Palestinian territory since 1967. Muslims are treated as second-class citizens within Israel and third class humans in the Occupied Territories.

Actually, the rights extended to non-Jews in Israel are far greater than the rights that people like Abu think should be extended to non-Muslims under Shariah law. They are also far greater than the rights extended in Israel's neighbours.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #111 - May 26^th, 2013 at 10:19am

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:04am:

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Soren, Israel is conducting activity that is illegal under international law. No country in the world except the US, Australia and the Marshall Islands even pretends to dispute this.

And no, expanding housing lots further into Palestinian territory, destroying olive plantations for bypass roads and denying the Palestinians a fair share of the precious water resources - has nothing to do with "defending itself".

And anyone who is familiar with the issue knows that you can never raise these grievances without being branded an anti-semite and/or terrorist supporter.

What is 'Palestinian territory'?

The areas governed by the Palestinian Authority. Formerly known as the "Occupied Territories" or "The West Bank", they are now recognised as "Palestine" by most countries on a defacto basis. De Jure recognition is fast approaching.

They were occupied by Jordan up until 1967. Nobody minded that occupation - Muslim lands, innit.
Then Jordan and Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. And lost the territories to Israel. All hell broke loose. Terrorism started in earnest. Can't have 'Muslim lands' under Jewish occupation - it's against everything the Koran says.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #112 - May 26^th, 2013 at 10:53am

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

They were occupied by Jordan up until 1967. Nobody minded that occupation - Muslim lands, innit.

You've obviously never heard about Black September.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Then Jordan and Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. And lost the territories to Israel.

Um actually you'll find that Israel attacked first. Pre-emptive strike of course, though this myth was directly refuted by Israel's the defence minister himself in an interview:

Quote:

in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

Quote:

It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #113 - May 26^th, 2013 at 11:01am

polite_gandalf wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

They were occupied by Jordan up until 1967. Nobody minded that occupation - Muslim lands, innit.

You've obviously never heard about Black September.

Are familiar with the device called 'calendar'? It is a fascinating thing - it tells you what year it is! Unbelievably, it tells you that 1970, for example, happened after 1967. Devilish clever, no?

The Black September Organization (BSO) (Arabic: منظمة أيلول الأسود‎, Munaẓẓamat Aylūl al-aswad) was a Palestinian terrorist organization, founded in 1970.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #114 - May 26^th, 2013 at 12:01pm

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

Gandalf, could you please clarify whether your support for freedom of speech extends to newspapers publishing the Muhammed cartoons and TV stations airing the youtube video?

I don't oppose critiism per se, but I do oppose deliberately inflammatory expressions specifically designed to vilify a particular group. The jury is still out which category the muhammad cartoons and video falls under. Either way, the point is that muslims are overwhelmingly united in opposing and condemning violent and threatening protests by muslims in response.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

You spent most of the thread trying to change the subject to whether Muslims want violence or peace and avoiding giving any clarification on their support for freedom of speech.

The problem is that you can't see that this is in fact at the very crux of the subject. My position is it is not possible to be peaceful and to preach peace, and be opposed to freedom of speech at the same time. Thats why I am primarily interested in whether muslims primarily want violence or peace. The formula is simple:

exercise, and insist on, peaceful, non-intimidatory condemnation = default support for freedom of speech
exercise, and insist on, violent and intimidatory condemnation = opposition for freedom of speech.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

The Muhammed cartoons and the youtube video did not cause people to attack Muslims. Quite the opposite. It caused Muslims to kill over 200 and over 45 people respectively. That is what causes people to react against Muslims. Not the cartoons, not the video, but Muslims killing people and acting like neanderthals.

I can only repeat the exact same point I made in my last post - that it is a packaged deal: muslims stir hatred against themselves by a minority committing attrocities, but for the process of vilification to complete, it requires hate mongerers to stir up hatred by painting all muslims with the same brush. One mechanism is to "culturalise the abject" - ie attribute the behaviour of a tiny minority criminal element, as normative to the entire muslim community. You lot here do that very well.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

No it doesn't, but feel free to elaborate.

Gandalf wrote:
Quote:

The article paints a picture of muslims wanting to peacefully condemn the video. I'm wondering what your objection to this is - given your such a fan of free speech and all.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:57pm:

Because it suggests that they oppose freedom of speech and that they did not abandon the protest out of respect for freedom of speech, but because they wanted to be more "calculated and planned" in the way they undermine freedom of speech. Before he left Abu was using similar language with reference to Islamic propaganda.

So, to sum up - jews can condemn any criticism of Israel and label it as anti-semitism and it is participating in free speech. Muslims attempting to peacefully condemn offensive phtotos on the other hand is "undermining free speech" in a more "calculated and planned" way. Go figure.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

However, deciding where to balance the competing rights and freedoms is a long way from Muslims insisting we should not mock Muhammed or Islam. Nor is it a rejection of freedom or human rights.

You seem blissfully unaware of the grey area, which surprises me.

From the Racial Discrimination Act 1975:

The Act makes it:
Quote:

“unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group

Hmmm seems you do have a right to not be offended after all - according to Australian law.

Also, good luck on defining what "reasonably likely" means.

a little piece of interesting trivia:
Quote:

In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

And thats just the federal law, I haven't even looked at all the state level laws.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

Can you back this up?

Like I said, the basis is in the public debate that raged in the media during the time. But also, just one poll:

Quote:

On February 3, 2006, another poll from Epinion made for Danmarks Radio, had asked 509 people "Considering the events that have occurred in the past week, should Jylland-Posten have published the depictions?". 47% said they shouldn't have been published, 46% said the opposite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinions_on_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_c...

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #115 - May 26^th, 2013 at 12:18pm

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

Are familiar with the device called 'calendar'? It is a fascinating thing - it tells you what year it is! Unbelievably, it tells you that 1970, for example, happened after 1967. Devilish clever, no?

OK smarty pants, have you ever heard of context then?

Did it ever occur to you that the events of Black September were a culmination of events and tensions that emanated from the original refugee crisis and annexation of the WB by Jordan?

From 1948 to 1967 the Palestinians comprised of two thirds of the Jordanian population - both the refugee population in Jordan proper, plus the occupied Palestinians in the WB. The Hashemites were nominal rulers, but it was clear that real power lay with the Palestinians - headed by Arafat's Fatah militants. When Israel captured the WB in 1967, this marked a significant power shift in Jordan - as the Hashemites suddenly became the majority. King Hussein acted swiftly to end the stranglehold the Palestinians had on Jordan once and for all. This culminated in the military defeat of Arafat, and the expulsion of most of Fatah to Lebanon.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #116 - May 26^th, 2013 at 2:12pm

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:04am:

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Soren, Israel is conducting activity that is illegal under international law. No country in the world except the US, Australia and the Marshall Islands even pretends to dispute this.

And no, expanding housing lots further into Palestinian territory, destroying olive plantations for bypass roads and denying the Palestinians a fair share of the precious water resources - has nothing to do with "defending itself".

And anyone who is familiar with the issue knows that you can never raise these grievances without being branded an anti-semite and/or terrorist supporter.

What is 'Palestinian territory'?

The areas governed by the Palestinian Authority. Formerly known as the "Occupied Territories" or "The West Bank", they are now recognised as "Palestine" by most countries on a defacto basis. De Jure recognition is fast approaching.

They were occupied by Jordan up until 1967. Nobody minded that occupation - Muslim lands, innit.
Then Jordan and Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. And lost the territories to Israel. All hell broke loose. Terrorism started in earnest. Can't have 'Muslim lands' under Jewish occupation - it's against everything the Koran says.

Methinks you need to learn some history - a subject I've noticed you appear rather ignorant of, Soren. Israel attacked Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1967. Israel seized the West Bank (and other territories) in the Six Day War. The Palestinians were unhappy with Jordanian control but it was preferable in their minds to Israeli control.

Yes, its about a preference for Muslim control over Jewish control. Considering the ethnic cleansing, colonisation and general mistreatment they have received over the last ~45 years, is it surprising, Soren? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: the threats posed by Islam Reply #117 - May 26^th, 2013 at 2:31pm the point is, it wasn't so much a case of the Jordanians occupying the Palestinians, but more the other way around.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47433
At my desk.

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #118 - May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm

Quote:

I don't oppose critiism per se, but I do oppose deliberately inflammatory expressions specifically designed to vilify a particular group. The jury is still out which category the muhammad cartoons and video falls under. Either way, the point is that muslims are overwhelmingly united in opposing and condemning violent and threatening protests by muslims in response.

Are you saying you are not sure whether the cartoons and videos should be made illegal?

Quote:

The problem is that you can't see that this is in fact at the very crux of the subject. My position is it is not possible to be peaceful and to preach peace, and be opposed to freedom of speech at the same time.

You seem to be pulling it off.

Quote:

exercise, and insist on, peaceful, non-intimidatory condemnation = default support for freedom of speech

The attempts to criminalise blasphemy in European parliaments, the EU and the UN are peaceful, yet do not support freedom of speech.

Quote:

I can only repeat the exact same point I made in my last post - that it is a packaged deal: muslims stir hatred against themselves by a minority committing attrocities, but for the process of vilification to complete, it requires hate mongerers to stir up hatred by painting all muslims with the same brush.

So it is not about the 200 people that were killed. Nor is it about the undermining of freedom of speech. It's really just about who gets blamed? We should refrain from saying anything that prompts Muslims to expose their barbaric side in case people start to think Muslims are barbaric?

Quote:

So, to sum up - jews can condemn any criticism of Israel and label it as anti-semitism and it is participating in free speech. Muslims attempting to peacefully condemn offensive phtotos on the other hand is "undermining free speech" in a more "calculated and planned" way. Go figure.

If either Jews or Muslims kill 200 people in response to a cartoon, that is an attack on freedom of speech. If either Jews or Muslims march through Sydney with placards calling for people who insult Muhammed to be beheaded, that is an attack on freedom of speech. Insisting that accusing someone of anti-semitism is the same as chopping their head off or threatening to do so merely further underlines how limited your understanding of freedom of speech is. If someone calls you an idiot after you say something stupid, that is not an attack on freedom of speech. If someone chops your head off because of what you say, that is an attack on freedom of speech. Is any of this getting through? How many times do I have to explain it?

Quote:

Like I said, the basis is in the public debate that raged in the media during the time. But also, just one poll:

So a close outcome among 500 Europeans from the heart of the controversy in response to a poorly framed poll shortly after the 200 murders means the vast majority of westerners think they shouldn't have been published?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the threats posed by Islam
Reply #119 - May 26^th, 2013 at 3:39pm

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

Are you saying you are not sure whether the cartoons and videos should be made illegal?

Yes. Do they breach the anti-discrimination act - or any other relevant law? That is the question.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

The attempts to criminalise blasphemy in European parliaments, the EU and the UN are peaceful, yet do not support freedom of speech.

A little different to what I'm talking about - which was peaceful condemnation, as opposed to bringing forth actual legislation to change free speech laws. Thats an entirely different matter - and yes I concede that you can oppose freedom of speech peacefully in that respect.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

So it is not about the 200 people that were killed. Nor is it about the undermining of freedom of speech

No, I specifically said that *IS* what it is about. However I also said its not the only thing. Most people would be happy to accept that the violence and intolerance is not representative of the entire community, and that it is not fair to vilify the entire community. Clearly a small number of acts by an unrepresentative group of extremists is not itself enough to cause an entire group to be vilified. It requires further intervention by professional sh!t stirrers to convince people that what the extremists do is normative.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

We should refrain from saying anything that prompts Muslims to expose their barbaric side in case people start to think Muslims are barbaric?

Muslims on the whole don't have a barbaric side - thats the point. So to rephrase you statement: we should refrain from saying malicious and false things that prompts people to unfairly vilify an entire community.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

If either Jews or Muslims kill 200 people in response to a cartoon, that is an attack on freedom of speech.

Stop bringing up the violence - I deliberately quoted you responding to my question about *PEACEFUL* protests - in which you said its merely a "calculated and planned" way to undermine free speech. I'm not talking about 200 dead people, because there's nothing we disagree on there - it *IS* an attack on free speech. But I want you to explain why you think an attempt to peacefully protest "suggests that they oppose freedom of speech". What is your opinion of the peaceful protests by muslims in Sydney in 2006 to protest the cartoons? Undermining of free speech or participation?

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

So a close outcome among 500 Europeans from the heart of the controversy in response to a poorly framed poll shortly after the 200 murders means the vast majority of westerners think they shouldn't have been published?

Don't strawman me - I never said a vast majority - I said a significant proportion. Suffice to say the west was well and trully divided on the issue - not the pro-free speech non-muslims vs anti-free speech muslims split you lot are making it out to be.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged