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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #30 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective.

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal. Angry

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: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law? Reply #31 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:27pm bump
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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #32 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective.

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal. Angry

Go to the mosques where those placard carrying Muslims gather and tell them.

I dare you.

But you are a cowardly pussy and you'd rather argue with me about hair splitting BS forever. You are safe here. You know I will not harm you.

Go and argue with the Muslims who would harm you AND me. That's your goddam task, not bellyaching here with me.

Go get.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #33 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm

Those placards have been universally condemned by the Australian muslim community. We've been over this enough times.

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour, not what vigilante actions gandalf should be taking against the muslim community. I say its illegal according to existing laws, and the perps should be charged for incitement.

What say you?

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #34 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:01pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

What say you?

I say that it is your responsibility, and your responsibility alone as Muslims, that horrific acts are committed in the name of Islam with the full chapter and verse justification cited from the Koran to the accompaniment of full-throated allahu akhbaring.

I say that your work is cut out and you'd better get on with it. Talking to me is not where your task lies. Talking to me is weaseally arse-covering and diversion by you.
Go and talk to your co-religionists who are ruining your reputation. But you are too afraid of them so you are badgering me endlessly about how peaceful your head hacking monsters really are.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #35 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:09pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law.

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

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: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #36 - Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:44pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law.

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

No.
The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever?

The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect.

The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously.

That is the topic.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50562
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #37 - Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm

Quote:

Calling for someone to be beheaded is incitement to violence - I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

That is not what we are disagreeing over. I already said I agree with that. You are making a habit of this. Do you remember what this thread is about?

Quote:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

There you go Gandalf, that wasn't so hard was it?

Quote:

But calling for a person to be beheaded who is already the source of intense anger across the muslim world, and whose life is already under direct threat - is about as specific a threat as you can get.

I didn't mention any names.

Quote:

So the default position is that such a placard in the context of a violent and angry riot, is illegal. However what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely.

No Gandalf. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Quote:

The rumour is she claimed she didn't know what the word "behead" meant. If true, then this obviously raises questions about her intent. In any case, your logic that because she wasn't charged, therefore it wasn't illegal, is patently absurd.

None of the people who did it were charged. The police made no attempt to charge them. The police made no statements even indicating it was illegal or that you could get charged. It is not absurd to conclude from that that it is legal. It is common sense. Add to this that you can not produce a single example of a person being charged for a similar offense and you are left with nothing (and no, a list of libel cases from around the world does not count).

Quote:

I've already mentioned the example of the minors who are regularly let off without charge for stealing - and we obviously don't go around saying stealing is therefore legal.

And I've already pointed out that this is not a trivial case. It is about as non-trvial as you can get, without using the placard to hack someone's head off.

Quote:

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal.

Is this you way of conceding it is legal?

Quote:

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

Gandalf, if a normal person wants to find out what the law is, they do not attempt to decipher vaguely written statutory legislation themselves. It is easy to reconcile - no-one was arrested for it. And your excuse about it being trivial is absurd.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #38 - Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:19pm

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 11:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour

Undoubtedly there is work to be done by the muslim community, but that is not the topic - the topic is about Australian law, and how these actions sit with Australian law.

I am assuming you don't think its illegal. If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that incitement to violence is expressly banned under Australian law?

No.
The topic, always and everywhere, is : why do we have so much trouble with Muslims, whether we are Christians, secularists, atheists, hindus, buddhists, whatever?

The topic, always and everywhere, is : why is there no Christian, secularist, atheist, hindu, buddhist protest demanding the beheading of Muslims, but there are regular Muslim demonstrations against everyone who thinks Islam is a load of bollocks and dares to draw a cartoon, write a book, express an opinion to that effect.

The topic is: why do we have to always, always hear about smacking Islam. I am sick of it. I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is not to be taken seriously.

That is the topic.

Sometimes you are so eloquent, Soren.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #39 - Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 11:48pm

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

That is not what we are disagreeing over. I already said I agree with that. You are making a habit of this. Do you remember what this thread is about?

Why yes I do - from the OP:

Quote:

So anyway, here is a thread for Gandalf to tell us what he thinks Australian law on the issue is

Here I am explaining to you "what I think Australian law on the issue is" - and I am telling you that incitement to violence is against the law. You agree that this action was incitement of violence, therefore you agree with me that this action was against the law.

If you seriously think that incitement to violence is not against the law, then I suggest you get your head examined.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

No Gandalf. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Well perhaps you can now answer my confusion - as I have mentioned it about 3 times now. Can you explain to me why people without a record (usually minors) are routinely let off with a warning after committing a crime such as stealing?

from the NSW Police department code of practice:

Quote:

Alternatives to arrest

Be mindful of competing requirements between the rights of individuals to be free and the need to use the extreme action of
arrest so you can commence proceedings against people who break the law. You must not arrest unless it is necessary to
achieve one or more of the purposes set out in section 99(3) of LEPRA (see Exercising the power to arrest). The alternatives to arrest include the following:

caution
warning
infringement notice
penalty notice
court attendance notice (eg ‘field’ or ‘future’ CAN)
youth justice conference.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108808/Code_CRIME_-_Jan...

Note "caution" and "warning" - which can be issued to the offender entirely at the discretion of the attending officer.

It is entirely possible that the placard carrying woman (as well as any other placard bearer), was let off with a caution or a warning. No arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record. Like I said before, its entirely possible that they broke the law, but " what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely. "

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

None of the people who did it were charged. The police made no attempt to charge them.

And as just explained, this is no argument claiming that what they did wasn't illegal.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

It is about as non-trvial as you can get, without using the placard to hack someone's head off.

I agree. And yet you seem to think its trivial enough to be deemed legal Grin

I honestly can't understand how you can argue this. You agree that it is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is specifically criminalised under Australian law. Yet somehow with what must be the most extroardinary use of lateral thinking, you think that it is legal. Go figure. Tongue

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

Gandalf, if a normal person wants to find out what the law is, they do not attempt to decipher vaguely written statutory legislation themselves.

But on this point it is not the least bit vague. Incitement to violence is illegal, there is no dispute there. And you agreed that this is incitement to violence. You agree that this activity was illegal, you're just too suborn to admit it.

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

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #40 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 8:26am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Those placards have been universally condemned by the Australian muslim community.

We've been over this enough times.

I wait to be corrected, but no, to me i did not see any such a condemnation [of the 'beheading' placards, or of those marching with them], coming from the Sydney/Australian moslem community.

as per....
Evidence mainstream islam facilitates radicalism?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367633212/311#311
Quote:

The only thing that occurred subsequent to the street protests, was that the Sydney moslem community used weasel words - that made it sound [to non-moslems] like they were denouncing the protesters - but could have been interpreted BY ANY MOSLEM to have been criticism of police aggression against the moslem street protesters.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367379581/0#0
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367379581/28#28
Quote:

THESE [below] ARE THE WORDS THAT WERE BROADCAST ON NATIONAL TV IN AUSTRALIA [AFTER MOSLEM PROTESTERS CARRIED PLACARDS IN THE SYDNEY CBD, CALLING FOR THE BEHEADING OF THOSE THAT OFFEND MOSLEMS/INSULT ISLAM];

"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images."

<----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney.

i Quote:

This topic is supposed to be about what Australian law says about such behaviour, not what vigilante actions gandalf should be taking against the muslim community.

I say its illegal according to existing laws, and the perps should be charged for incitement.

Thank you for that, gandalf.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #41 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 11:28am

Yadda wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images."

<----- I do not know how that video report was edited by Channel 7, but in those words [presented in the Channel 7 video report], the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community could have been referring to >> the police << behaviour, in 'confronting' moslems, on the streets of Sydney.

I thought we were over this Yadda.

The question was, and I think I can quote verbotem from memory:

"Do you condemn those images of children holding placards calling for beheadings?"

to which he answered:
"It is an 'image' that we condemn. Unequivocally. We are very stressed to see such images."

I have linked you the video of that press conference. There is no ambiguity in that question and answer - none whatsoever.

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

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40951
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #42 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 12:54pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Thats great Soren, but I am not talking from a muslim perspective, I am talking from an Australian perspective.

And as far as I'm concerned (as a proud Australian), marching down a public street with a placard calling for people who express a particular point of view to be beheaded, is unacceptable, un-Australian, and should be bloody well illegal. Angry

I am thinking you guys are at times unjust against gandalf.
He and I rarely agree, but on this time also we do.

an incitement to a violent act should be illegal. I thought it was.
I would not march down the street with a placard saying "murder all muslims."
If I did, I would expect to get in strife.

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50562
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #43 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm

Quote:

Here I am explaining to you "what I think Australian law on the issue is" - and I am telling you that incitement to violence is against the law. You agree that this action was incitement of violence, therefore you agree with me that this action was against the law.

Sorry I keep forgetting. "It's that simple".

Quote:

Can you explain to me why people without a record (usually minors) are routinely let off with a warning after committing a crime such as stealing?

The warning tells them that what they did was illegal.

Quote:

Note "caution" and "warning" - which can be issued to the offender entirely at the discretion of the attending officer.

I don't see "laughed at and told to go away and stop admitting to non-crimes" listed as an option. Do you?

Quote:

It is entirely possible that the placard carrying woman (as well as any other placard bearer), was let off with a caution or a warning. No arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record. Like I said before, its entirely possible that they broke the law, but " what the authorities deem is an appropriate prosecution of the law is a different matter entirely. "

Do you have any evidence of this, other than wishful thinking? Do you think the authorities would deliberately mislead the public by keeping it a secret while leading everyone to believe it is not a crime?

Quote:

And as just explained, this is no argument claiming that what they did wasn't illegal.

Yes it is, unless you invoke a conspiracy on the part of the authorities to trick people into thinking it is legal.

Quote:

I agree. And yet you seem to think its trivial enough to be deemed legal

Trivial and legal are not the same thing. BTW, if you concede it is non-trivial, why do you keep suggesting triviality as a reason for no charges?

Quote:

I honestly can't understand how you can argue this. You agree that it is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is specifically criminalised under Australian law.

Like I keep telling you, you are not a lawyer, and it is foolish for you to attempt to interpret statutory law.

Quote:

But on this point it is not the least bit vague. Incitement to violence is illegal, there is no dispute there.

Of course it is vague. Watching a boxing match and encouraging the contestants to beat each other up is also incitement to violence, yet not illegal. Like I keep telling you, you have not clue at all what those statutes mean in practice. You have no clue at all what the law is. You are merely regurgitating a pamphlet on hate crime.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #44 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 3:28pm

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

I don't see "laughed at and told to go away and stop admitting to non-crimes" listed as an option. Do you?

And who was told that FD? The placard mother? Of course you must have some evidence for such a claim right?

For all you know she *WAS* given a warning, you don't know do you? I don't know either, but I'm not the one trying to argue what the law says based on nothing but pure speculation as to what happened to her at the police station.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Trivial and legal are not the same thing. BTW, if you concede it is non-trivial, why do you keep suggesting triviality as a reason for no charges?

I don't. My point is that charging or not charging is at the discretion of the attending officer(s). I'm making mockery of your claim that someone can only be deemed to be breaking the law if the attending officer(s) decides to proceed with laying charges. Besides, I don't necessarily consider theft by minors as a trivial crime, but neither is laying charges on a minor giving them a criminal conviction hanging over their head for the rest of their lives. The police have to make the judgment call as to whether the communities' interests are better served by issuing a caution/warning. Similar situation for the placard mum.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Like I keep telling you, you are not a lawyer, and it is foolish for you to attempt to interpret statutory law.

Incitement to violence is illegal. I don't need to be an expert at interpreting statutory law to know that Tongue

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Of course it is vague. Watching a boxing match and encouraging the contestants to beat each other up is also incitement to violence, yet not illegal.

The violence has to be illegal - obviously. If it was an underground/unauthorised boxing match, then such encouragement would absolutely be illegal.

"Behead those who insult the prophet"

Can you detect the hidden message there FD? Its "Go forth and find the people responsible for the insulting youtube video, and murder them". Thats what we call incitement to violence. Its slightly different to "ooh yeah - lets have a fair fight between two professional boxers!" wouldn't you say?

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