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

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #45 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on 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.

Not yet.

The declaration by the spokesman for the Sydney moslem community which was in teh Ch7 news item was NOT, NOT, NOT, specific.i
Quote:

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.

The line i have strikethrough-ed is NOT heard [is not verbatim] in the Ch7 news item.

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.

e.g. The very next statement [by the very same spokesman], for the Sydney moslem community, demonstrates just how ambiguous the statements [that were presented in the Channel 7 video report] from the Sydney moslem community were, regarding the protest 'incident' involving moslems in the Sydney CBD !!;

"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."

That is a very ambiguous statement, to anyone who is familiar with what ISLAM does 'allow' [to be taught to moslem children] !

The moslem woman in the video report, merely states that she wants all of the attention about this incident to go away.

YT
Muslim leaders 'call for calm' goto 1m 40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyKXA2b9WI4

Q.

What did the spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community actually say ???

A.

"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children .....in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."

THIS IS WHAT THE AUSTRALIAN MOSLEM COMMUNITY ARE OBLIGATED TO TEACH TO THEIR CHILDREN - "....in a way that ISLAM does believe in"...

n.b.
ISLAM does prohibit believers from expressing love or sincere friendship towards 'disbelievers'.

"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends.....offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them."
Koran 3.28

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51

THIS IS WHAT THE AUSTRALIAN MOSLEM COMMUNITY ARE OBLIGATED TO TEACH TO THEIR CHILDREN - "....in a way that ISLAM does believe in"...

n.b.
ISLAM does obligate believers to have enmity [hatred] towards 'disbelievers'.

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

TWO YOUTUBES WHERE MOSLEM SPOKESMAN MAKES AMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SYDNEY PROTESTS;

Muslim leaders 'call for calm'[/b] goto 1m 40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyKXA2b9WI4

Muslim leaders call for calm [Sydney protests]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Lm4yKsuZs

NEXT TWO, SHOWING THE CONFRONTATIONS BETWEEN POLICE AND MOSLEMS;

Violent Muslim clashes condemned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0pcqHQtQmY

Islam leaders condemn clashes - NO THEY DONT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yALGYapmq9w

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 4^th, 2013 at 6:59pm by Yadda »

"....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

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #46 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 6:56pm

This;

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

and this;

"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."

Is just moslem sophistry, imo.

The same spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community could have said something like;

"We, the moslem community, condemn this incitement to murder, by persons purporting to be moslems."

BUT HE DIDN'T.i
Sophistry.

Speaking in the UK, a moslem community leader speaking regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.

"......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians.

Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:32pm by Yadda »

"....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:	Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law? Reply #47 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:14pm Yadda I've already posted the video of the entire press conference. It was in the SMH site, linking a channel 10 video. Not the edited channel 7 video.
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 #48 - Jun 4^th, 2013 at 8:57pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

This;

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

and this;

"The majority of the Australian moslem community, particularly the mainstream, have not and will not educate our children in a way that ISLAM does not believe in."

Is just moslem sophistry, imo.

The same spokesman, for the Sydney moslem community could have said something like;

"We, the moslem community, condemn this incitement to murder, by persons purporting to be moslems."

BUT HE DIDN'T.

Here is another YT, which reviews those Sydney CBD protests, where moslems displayed "behead them" placards - listen to moslem comments made in the aftermath of the protests;

"Protest organisers denounced the violence. In particular this image of a young boy supporting beheading...."
[A protest organiser declares;] "What that sign is saying is totally despicable."
"But when we showed that photo at a moslem conference in Bankstown today, only one man agreed to comment;....."
"I CAN TELL YOU, HE KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT HIS RELIGION. AND IS TRYING TO DEFEND [ISLAM] IN A POSITIVE WAY....BECAUSE IT IS NOT DOING ANYTHING IN VIOLENCE, IN THAT. [i.e. the moslem is explaining, that it is not 'violent' for moslems to display placards threatening to behead those who do not believe as moslems believe.]"

Islamic brotherhood behind violence goto 1m 05s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IROcJvVCpFU

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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98425

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #49 - Jun 5^th, 2013 at 12:36am

Yadda wrote on 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.

So why don’t you post on any topic OTHER THAN Islam?

The old boy is sick of it.

Actually, good luck finding something the old boy isn’t sick of. He hasn’t been himself since the last colonectomy.

Mind you, he’s partial to a nice, freshly-laid turd. If you can dish up one of them you’ll be in his good books. Oh - you already have.

My apologies, Y.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #50 - Jun 5^th, 2013 at 7:46am

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 12:36am:

Yadda wrote on 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.

So why don’t you post on any topic OTHER THAN Islam?

K,

You are mistaken intentionally misrepresenting my posting history on OzPol.

ISLAM is the topic in only 99% of my posts. Tongue

Why so [ISLAM] ?

It is so very easy for human beings to make poor choices [e.g. all moslems!].

How can people make good choices, if they are basing their decisions upon lies/mistaken information ?i

Jeremiah 9:3
And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.

John 18:37
......Jesus answered,......To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Truth is an irritant, to those who hate it.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

"....lest his deeds should be reproved."

???

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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50550
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #51 - Jun 5^th, 2013 at 2:39pm

Gndalf, you are right that each of the points I raise would make a weak case in isolation, but I am not making them in isolation. Consider the alternatives:

On the one hand we have Gandalf, who is not a lawyer and has no relevant experience, but claims to understand the law after reading a pamphlet on hate crime. According to him it is that simple, and anyone who cheers at a boxing match is breaking the law.

On the other had we have a very long list of contradictory evidence. In the case of the beheading placards:
1) Many people have done this. Not one of them was charged. Gandalf's excuse that the police ignore trivial crimes hardly applies here.
2) Journalists photographed the people holding the placards. The photos were published on the front page of the paper. Still no-one was charged and the police made no effort to do so.
3) One of the 'offenders' handed herself into police. She was still not charged.
4) Despite all the media attention, no-one who is actually in a position to know has stated it is illegal. The politicians who framed the laws have not stated it is illegal. The police and crown prosecutors have not stated that it is illegal, despite issuing public statements about the events and the alleged offender who handed herself in. Many of these people have an incentive to clarify the legality and it simply does not make sense that they would not issue a public statement if it were illegal. If we widen the net, no judicial authority has claimed it is illegal. No legal academics have claimed it is illegal. Not even the journalists covering the stories have claimed it is or even might be illegal.
5) Gandalf cannot produce a single alternative example of someone being charged for this sort of crime.

What does common sense tell you?

Quote:

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

It was in the paper.

Quote:

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.

You are basing your position on pure speculation around a hate crime pamphlet you read, and now you think you are a lawyer.

I am basing it on the complete lack of evidence that it is illegal. Not just this particular woman, but every other person whore carried a beheading placard. Beyond that, you cannot produce a single example of anyone being charge for anything similar. If it was illegal and Muslims were blatantly breaking the law and making the front page while doing it, do you really think nothing would happen? Not even a press release from that police warning that it was illegal?

Quote:

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.

That is not my claim Gandalf.

Quote:

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

Cheering at a boxing match is not illegal. Carrying those placards is not illegal. You should not have to be a lawyer to figure this out, but a bit of common sense would help.

Quote:

Can you detect the hidden message there FD?

LOL, now Gandalf is the one insisting Muslims don't mean what they actually say.

Quote:

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?

Of course it is different, but you are the one suggesting there is no room for subtlety. You are the one saying "it is that simple". You are the one who thinks a pamphlet on hate crime tells you all you need to know about the law, and that you can know from merely reading a pamphlet that something is illegal, even though every other piece of evidence you have points the other way.

That pamphlet is not the Koran Gandalf. It does not tell you everything you need to know. You still have to think for yourself.

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 #52 - Jun 5^th, 2013 at 10:05pm

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

On the other had we have a very long list of contradictory evidence.

Not really. None of that evidence contradict my point that charges don't need to be made for something to be illegal. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging this.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

Cheering at a boxing match is not illegal.

Don't forget illegal boxing match FD - kind of important that detail. If people are (in your words) "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" at an illegal event, I daresay they are indeed committing a crime.

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: 50550
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #53 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm

Quote:

Not really. None of that evidence contradict my point that charges don't need to be made for something to be illegal. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging this.

If people do something many times, and charges are never laid, then it is legal. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Quote:

Don't forget illegal boxing match FD - kind of important that detail. If people are (in your words) "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" at an illegal event, I daresay they are indeed committing a crime.

Not by virtue of the fact that they are cheering or egging them on.

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 #54 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 2:57pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

If people do something many times, and charges are never laid, then it is legal. The law is defined by how it is enforced.

Which of course doesn't apply to this case, since this is the first time in the history of muslim settlement in Australia that muslims have protested with signs calling for people to be beheaded.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Not by virtue of the fact that they are cheering or egging them on.

I would disagree.

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: 50550
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #55 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm

Quote:

Which of course doesn't apply to this case, since this is the first time in the history of muslim settlement in Australia that muslims have protested with signs calling for people to be beheaded.

Does the law only apply to Muslims?

Quote:

I would disagree.

So now you think it is illegal to cheer people on who are fighting without official permission?

Gandalf, so far your only argument has been that we cannot interpret the fact that no-one was charged as evidence that something is legal, and your uninformed interpretation of a pamphlet on hate crime. Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too.

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 #56 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 8:19pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Does the law only apply to Muslims?

As usual you make no sense. I'm refuting your claim that these placard offenders were repeat offenders. The fact that this is the very first time in the history of muslim settlement that these placards were brought out, just reinforces my point that its likely that at least part of the reason they weren't charged is because they were first time offenders.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

So now you think it is illegal to cheer people on who are fighting without official permission?

Thats not what I said. What I said was likely illegal was your description of people "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" - in the context of an illegal fighting arena.. I know its a subtle difference, but its an important one.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Gandalf, so far your only argument has been that we cannot interpret the fact that no-one was charged as evidence that something is legal

Not true. I made my case as to why I believe the placards constitute an act of incitement to violence, and therefore illegal. The point about the absense of any charges was merely to refute your absurd claim that no charges definitely means legal activity.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

your uninformed interpretation of a pamphlet on hate crime.

You still haven't explained how my interpretation of the law is uninformed.

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: 50550
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #57 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm

Gandalf, I noticed you didn't respond to this bit. Why? Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too?

Is it because there are no examples, ever, of a person being charged for something even remotely similar?

Quote:

As usual you make no sense. I'm refuting your claim that these placard offenders were repeat offenders.

That is not my claim either.

Quote:

The fact that this is the very first time in the history of muslim settlement that these placards were brought out

Yadda used to post nearly identical placards all the time, before the Sydney protests. It's like a Muslim meme.

Quote:

Thats not what I said. What I said was likely illegal was your description of people "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" - in the context of an illegal fighting arena.. I know its a subtle difference, but its an important one.

Please explain the legal distinction. Is this an established legal principle, or just another case of you making crap up and telling everyone that it is the law?

Quote:

You still haven't explained how my interpretation of the law is uninformed.

Yes I have. You are not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. Your interpretation is clumsy at best. You even said it yourself - "it's that simple".

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 #58 - Jun 7^th, 2013 at 1:14am

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Gandalf, I noticed you didn't respond to this bit. Why? Surely the sensible approach would be for you to find an example where someone was actually charged for doing something similar to waiving the pamphlet on cheering on a fight. They don't have to be Muslims. I'm sure non-Muslims break the law occasionally too?

Its likely no one has ever been charged over inciteful placards at a protest in Australia - though there are several examples in the UK. Which is not surprising since the Sydney protest was the first of its kind. Certainly its the first time in the history of muslim settlement (at least that I am aware) that beheading placards were brought out in a public rally.

But of course, as I keep saying, lack of an arrest history doesn't in any way mean the activity is not illegal.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Yadda used to post nearly identical placards all the time, before the Sydney protests. It's like a Muslim meme.

UK protests FD, not Australian.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Please explain the legal distinction. Is this an established legal principle

The point was merely to distinguish between "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" and simply cheering a sport. Of course it may have just been a poor choice of words on your part, but what you said can easily be construed in a way that amounts to incitement as defined by the law. For example "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" could be one person telling one "contestant" that the other contestant is a dirty n***** who wants to rape his mum - and that he should do something about it.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

or just another case of you making crap up and telling everyone that it is the law?

lol - a bit like you making up stories about someone being laughed at and told to go away by the police - and using that as the basis for saying what she did was legal?

Also, don't confuse what is the law on paper, and how that law is prosecuted in the real world. The former is quite simple, the latter is very complicated. The problem you have is that you have it the wrong way around: you think the legislation is too complicated for any non-legal expert to understand (which is ridiculous), but judging what is and isn't legal is a simple matter of seeing how the law is enforced - which is even more ridiculous. Saying that marching down the street with a placard that instructs others to kill a particular group of people is legal on the basis that no one has been arrested over it yet - is ridiculous. Take these placard bearers to 10 different judges, and you will likely get 10 different verdicts. There are so many factors to consider to determine what verdict is made, and so much is determined by the subjective interpretation of the actual judge (or jury) that presides on that particular day. But even so, on paper, the act itself is a pretty clear cut breach of incitement to violence laws (ie "go forth and kill these particular people").

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Yes I have. You are not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. Your interpretation is clumsy at best. You even said it yourself - "it's that simple".

Thats not saying anything. At least for the laws we are talking about, it really is that simple.

How, for example, am I wrong about incitement to [illegal] violence being against the 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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50550
At my desk.

Re: Does Gandalf's opinion exactly match our law?
Reply #59 - Jun 7^th, 2013 at 8:41am

Quote:

Its likely no one has ever been charged over inciteful placards at a protest in Australia

What about something similar? SUrely placards are not the only way someone could fall foul of these laws?

Quote:

though there are several examples in the UK

Can you give more information on them?

Quote:

But of course, as I keep saying, lack of an arrest history doesn't in any way mean the activity is not illegal.

If no-one ever gets charged, despite people doing it so openly, then it is legal.

Quote:

The point was merely to distinguish between "encouraging the contestants to beat each other up" and simply cheering a sport.

How is this different for a boxing match? Are there different ways to cheer them on, some legal and some illegal?

Quote:

Also, don't confuse what is the law on paper, and how that law is prosecuted in the real world.

That is exactly what you are doing. You have no real world evidence at all that the placards are illegal. All the evidence points to them being legal.

Quote:

The problem you have is that you have it the wrong way around: you think the legislation is too complicated for any non-legal expert to understand

No Gandalf. I think the concepts are too complicated for you to understand. I would expect most people to have grasped them a long time ago.

Quote:

but judging what is and isn't legal is a simple matter of seeing how the law is enforced - which is even more ridiculous

It's a good place to start. You have also failed to produce any "informed opinion" that the placards are illegal. All you have is your own opinion.

Quote:

Take these placard bearers to 10 different judges, and you will likely get 10 different verdicts.

According to you it is all very simple.

Quote:

At least for the laws we are talking about, it really is that simple.

You just finished explaining how complicated it is and how each judge would give a different verdict. Do you think these judges are idiots?

Back to top

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

IP Logged