Australian Politics Forum - Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm

I have been trying to find out Gandalf's view on freedom of speech and blasphemy etc in this thread.

Muslims want to silence and intimidate you

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442

It sounds simple, but after about a dozen pages I have gotten as far as you would expect after two or three posts with an honest person. He is even more skilled than Abu at deflecting.

His first trick was to pretend he had difficulties understanding English, and that he thought we were asking him whether Muslims enjoy violence. He then claimed that he and most Australian Muslims support freedom of speech. Then it emerged he opposed it, for example by insisting the Muhammed cartoon should be illegal. He then rattled off a list of excuses for why he could not possibly give any other examples of what should be banned. His latest trick is to insist his opinion on what the law should be is exactly identical to what Australian law currently is, and thus is only willing to discuss what Australian law is and not his view on what cartoons and opinions should be banned. This is rather convenient for him, as Australian law is a fairly grey area at the moment, so he could deflect to this for a decade or so without ever saying what his views are.

So anyway, here is a thread for Gandalf to tell us what he thinks Australian law on the issue is, so he can stop complaining about me not wanting to discuss it in the other thread (and so you don't have to hire a lawyer to find out what he thinks).

Gandalf, please tell us what we can and cannot say under Australian law....

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 28^th, 2013 at 9:55pm by freediver »

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #1 - May 28^th, 2013 at 11:32pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

I have gotten as far as you would expect after two or three posts with an honest person

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

He is even more skilled than Abu at deflecting

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

His first trick was to pretend

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

list of excuses

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

His latest trick

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

he could deflect to this

Maybe if you stopped behaving like a 2 year old and acted a little less insulting to someone who has patiently attempted to answer all your queries in good faith, honestly and as frankly as I could - you might get a better response.

Anyway, as I have been saying all along (maybe you missed it FD - too busy looking for deflections maybe) - exercising anti-discrimination laws *IS* a grey area, but the concepts and principles behind them are very clear: people should have the right not to be vilified/intimidated and threatened, free speech should not extend to stirring hate against a group of people. These are fairly simple concepts, but of course the devil is in the detail. FD of course demands that I spell out exactly what this means (otherwise its 'deflective', being a typical dishonest muslim etc etc) - but of course its something that can only be judged on a case by case basis. I made a case for why I think the Muhammad- bomb in turban cartoon was vilifying by nature, and how its publishing *CAN* (though obviously not always) be vilifying. This seemed a pertinent case that we could talk about - but what I was trying to explain was you can't just make a blanket judgment "it should be allowed to be published" or "it should not be allowed to be published" - which I assume is what FD is all riled up about, and what prompted the deflection/ sneak muslim playing "tricks" tirade. However I think anyone looking at my argument calmly and objectively would understand that it is valid.

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #2 - May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm

Seeing as you are avoiding the topic again, let's start with the most obvious example that demonstrates the huge gulf between your views and the reality. According to you, the beheading placards used in the Sydney protests are illegal. In reality they are not. It is not even a grey area.

Quote:

FD of course demands that I spell out exactly what this means

No. I even suggested you give a few more examples instead, which is when you started the latest round of deflections.

Quote:

but what I was trying to explain was you can't just make a blanket judgment "it should be allowed to be published" or "it should not be allowed to be published"

No you weren't. We had moved well beyond that to context, and I was highlighting the absurdity of some of your explanations. You were deflecting by insisting your opinion was identical to Australian law, which is deceptive at best seeing as even you recognise what a grey area it is at the moment, at least if you attempt to go by the statutes and pamphlets.

Quote:

but the concepts and principles behind them are very clear: people should have the right not to be vilified/intimidated and threatened

This is wrong. Just because someone feels intimidated, threatened or vilified does not mean their rights have been violated.

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #3 - May 29^th, 2013 at 1:29pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

According to you, the beheading placards used in the Sydney protests are illegal. In reality they are not. It is not even a grey area.

Once again I disagree. On what basis do you say they are not illegal? Because no one was arrested over it? Just because authorities can't be bothered pursuing violations of the law to the letter - doesn't mean they weren't still breaking the law. How do you propose to justify your claim that it wasn't illegal - given that it was clear call for violence against specific people (incitment)?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

No. I even suggested you give a few more examples instead, which is when you started the latest round of deflections.

Well lets see, I gave you the restaurant scenario, the workplace scenario and the publication of the Muhammad cartoon by a hate group scenario. Is that what you call deflections? Please explain to me what is so inadequte or "deflective" about these examples? You seemed satisfied with the examples at the time - this deflections nonsense only came up later.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

You were deflecting by insisting your opinion was identical to Australian law

I gave you my position of the principles of vilification in relation to free speech - which just so happens to be consistent with existing Australian law. I then gave you several examples of how this could work in practice (ie context). What have I missed FD? Please explain to me in a clear and calm way - instead of launching another rant about deflections and tricks.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

This is wrong. Just because someone feels intimidated, threatened or vilified does not mean their rights have been violated.

Notice I didn't use the word "feels" - thats your little addition. I said people should have the right not to BE vilified - key difference. If people *ARE* being intimidated/vilified/threatened, then there rights absolutely are being violated.

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #4 - May 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm

Quote:

Once again I disagree. On what basis do you say they are not illegal? Because no one was arrested over it? Just because authorities can't be bothered pursuing violations of the law to the letter - doesn't mean they weren't still breaking the law. How do you propose to justify your claim that it wasn't illegal - given that it was clear call for violence against specific people (incitment)?

One of the women who brandished one of these placards handed herself into police. They laughed at her and told her to go away. It is not illegal.

Quote:

I gave you my position of the principles of vilification in relation to free speech - which just so happens to be consistent with existing Australian law.

Your absurdly vague description of your views on the matter are consistent with your equally vague description of the law. It sounded like you were attempting to regurgitate a pamphlet on the law, right up until you gave a specific example, which of course demonstrated you don't have a clue what the law is. From this point you were only willing to describe your views by regurgitating your poor understanding of the law or by simply insisting it is identical to the law.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 29^th, 2013 at 7:26pm by freediver »

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #5 - May 29^th, 2013 at 8:04pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

One of the women who brandished one of these placards handed herself into police. They laughed at her and told her to go away. It is not illegal.

Like I said, the absense of prosecution does not mean a violation of the law was not made. I suspect the police would laugh at someone who handed themselves in for downloading pirated movies too.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

It sounded like you were attempting to regurgitate a pamphlet on the law, right up until you gave a specific example, which of course demonstrated you don't have a clue what the law is

I think we are permitted to discuss this in this thread right?

If so perhaps finally you can start explaining what you mean by this. Or would you prefer more obfuscating?

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #6 - May 29^th, 2013 at 8:18pm

Quote:

Like I said, the absense of prosecution does not mean a violation of the law was not made.

Actually it does. The law is defined by how it is enforced, not just how the statutes are framed.

Quote:

I suspect the police would laugh at someone who handed themselves in for downloading pirated movies too.

These are pursued in civil court. And the context of a violent riot that made headlines is hardly the same as such a petty matter. I can't imagine sending a stronger message to the public that this sort of thing is legal. If you have any contradictory examples, now would be a good time to present them. Or are you suggesting that your interpretation of a pamphlet you read about the law trumps reality?

Quote:

If so perhaps finally you can start explaining what you mean by this. Or would you prefer more obfuscating?

Sure. You took an absurdly vague description of a law or principle. You stuck "in a restaraunt" at the front of it. Now you think you have a specific example.

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #7 - May 29^th, 2013 at 9:27pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Actually it does. The law is defined by how it is enforced, not just how the statutes are framed.

That bears absolutely no resemblance to the real world FD. Kids are let off all the time for minor misdemeanors - because the weight of having a criminal record is deemed too harsh a thing to have hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Police and courts are making these sorts of judgment calls all the time. our justice system is not robotic.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Sure. You took an absurdly vague description of a law or principle. You stuck "in a restaraunt" at the front of it. Now you think you have a specific example.

The law is what it is. If you could point out what exactly you think I am wrong about the law that would be a great help. I think my examples are adequate and self explanatory enough for our purposes - but again if you think otherwise, please elaborate in a constructive way - not just more cryptic smarty pants negativity.

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #8 - May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm

Quote:

That bears absolutely no resemblance to the real world FD. Kids are let off all the time for minor misdemeanors - because the weight of having a criminal record is deemed too harsh a thing to have hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Police and courts are making these sorts of judgment calls all the time. our justice system is not robotic.

That was my point gandalf. If they were robotic someone would go to jail every time someone else felt intimidated.

Quote:

The law is what it is.

Good point. But what is it?

Quote:

If you could point out what exactly you think I am wrong about the law that would be a great help.

The woman who carried the beheading placard did not break the law. The Muhammed cartoons did not break the law. The Muhammed video did not break the law. It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. Many people feel intimidated by my beauty and my intellect, yet I am free to roam the streets and make women blush.

Quote:

I think my examples are adequate and self explanatory enough for our purposes - but again if you think otherwise, please elaborate in a constructive way - not just more cryptic smarty pants negativity.

My problem with them is that they are wrong. Or at least, when you make specific claims about what is illegal, you are wrong.

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #9 - May 29^th, 2013 at 9:46pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

That was my point gandalf. If they were robotic someone would go to jail every time someone else felt intimidated.

No, your "point" was to claim that non-prosecution of an act means the act was legal, which of course is nonsense - for the reasons I stated.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

The woman who carried the beheading placard did not break the law.

Based on the idea that because she wasn't prosecuted, it must be legal - which as we have already established is rubbish.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating.

Quote:

The Act makes it “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.

Any plans to stop making such stupid claims? Oh right, that would mean you would have to stop posting altogether.

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #10 - May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm

Quote:

No, your "point" was to claim that non-prosecution of an act means the act was legal, which of course is nonsense - for the reasons I stated.

In this case, yes, but I did not make the generalisation you suggest. The reasons you gave are absurd. All you did was give an example of a petty matter that is dealt with in civil courts being dismissed by police as an explanation for why police would ignore an act that you consider to be a crime, that made front page news, and for which no effort on the part of police was required to apprehend the perpetrator. What you are saying is stupid.

If you have any contradictory examples, now would be a good time to present them. Or are you suggesting that your naive interpretation of a pamphlet you read about the law trumps reality?

Quote:

Any plans to stop making such stupid claims? Oh right, that would mean you would have to stop posting altogether.

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. The law is defined not just how how it is stated in statute (and particularly not by your naive interpretation of an interpretation of statute) but also by how it is enforced.

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #11 - May 29^th, 2013 at 10:24pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

All you did was give an example of a petty matter that is dealt with in civil courts being dismissed by police as an explanation for why police would ignore an act that you consider to be a crime, that made front page news, and for which no effort on the part of police was required to apprehend the perpetrator. What you are saying is stupid.

There's no meaningful difference vis-a-vis the individuals involved. In both cases, charges were not pursued because the police deemed it not worth the trouble - *NOT* because they didn't think a breach of the law was made. Police know better than to charge a naive young mother over an ill-thought out gesture of defiance - in exactly the same way they routinely let first offender minors go with no more than a stern talking to.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

It is not illegal to intimidate or to be intimidating. The law is defined not just how how it is stated in statute (and particularly not by your naive interpretation of an interpretation of statute) but also by how it is enforced.

Here's where you need to clarify your blanket statement, rather than simply repeat what is specifically refuted in the law. The very best you can say is that intimidation is only illegal in certain situations. But that obviously still makes a mockery of your claim that "it is not illegal to intimidate" - since it obviously can be illegal in certain situations

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #12 - May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm

Quote:

There's no meaningful difference vis-a-vis the individuals involved. In both cases, charges were not pursued because the police deemed it not worth the trouble

Can you give an example, either imaginary or real, that would be worth the trouble? Suppose for example that the Muslims used the beheading placards to chop people's heads off. Would the police then make the effort to fine the Muslims for intimidating people then?

Also, if it is not possible to be legally punished for something, is that not the definition of legal? Or is legal defined by what you read in your pamphlets?

Quote:

Police know better than to charge a naive young mother over an ill-thought out gesture of defiance

I see you have googled the case. Recently you were telling everyone how they should be brought to justice. How naive do you have to be to carry a placard calling for people to be beheaded?

Quote:

in exactly the same way they routinely let first offender minors go with no more than a stern talking to.

Are you suggesting she would get arrested if she did it again?

Quote:

Here's where you need to clarify your blanket statement, rather than simply repeat what is specifically refuted in the law. The very best you can say is that intimidation is only illegal in certain situations. But that obviously still makes a mockery of your claim that "it is not illegal to intimidate" - since it obviously can be illegal in certain situations

How about this: you are incapable of giving a single example of any person being found guilty under any of these Australian laws, merely for intimidating people. If walking through Sydney with a few hundred angry, violent, rioting Muslims carrying placards calling for people's heads to be chopped off does not count as intimidation, please tell us what does count.

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #13 - May 29^th, 2013 at 11:14pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Can you give an example, either imaginary or real, that would be worth the trouble?

Any case where someone was prosecuted for vilification. I'm sure there must be hundreds of such cases. Even you could find one if you tried FD.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

Also, if it is not possible to be legally punished for something, is that not the definition of legal?

I suppose it is. Nothing to do with what I was talking about though.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

I see you have googled the case. Recently you were telling everyone how they should be brought to justice.

Yes - and...?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

If walking through Sydney with a few hundred angry, violent, rioting Muslims carrying placards calling for people's heads to be chopped off does not count as intimidation, please tell us what does count.

My question exactly. I would be genuinely interested to know why the police did not lay any charges to any of those placard holders. You say 'because its not illegal' - yet you haven't explained how that can be given what the law says about incitement to violence. Or is it that you don't consider such a sign as incitement to violence?

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

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #14 - May 30^th, 2013 at 6:41pm

Quote:

Any case where someone was prosecuted for vilification. I'm sure there must be hundreds of such cases. Even you could find one if you tried FD.

I am vaguely aware of 2 or 3. Forget the outcome. I doubt they would number in the hundreds. I would be surprised if they made double digits.

Quote:

I suppose it is. Nothing to do with what I was talking about though.

Why is it irrelevant?

Quote:

Yes - and...?

Well, it was the only clear example you had given, and now you have changed your mind.

Quote:

My question exactly. I would be genuinely interested to know why the police did not lay any charges to any of those placard holders. You say 'because its not illegal' - yet you haven't explained how that can be given what the law says about incitement to violence.

I think the quotes you have been posting regarding the law (forget where from) are highly misleading and ambiguous. I suspect the law is equally ambiguous, and it has been completely left to judges to decide where yo draw the line. It does not surprise me at all that the placard bearers were not charged. Any such restriction on expression of political protest would make a judge or a crown prosecutor very nervous. I don't think Australia has any explicit protection on freedom of speech (eg via constitution) so judges etc have always played a key role in maintaining our freedom.

Quote:

Or is it that you don't consider such a sign as incitement to violence?

I think it is an incitement to violence. I think Islam is an incitement to violence. I think both should be protected under the principle of freedom of speech.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged