Australian Politics Forum - Judge 'unreasonable'

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 40485 Gender:	Re: Judge 'unreasonable' Reply #30 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:36pm Not in court, pajama boy, not in court.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #31 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:37pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:16pm:

Don't Muslims have to follow the law of the land Gandalf?

She did homo - she dutifully sat outside the courtroom as instructed.

And of course all muslims have a right - even duty to debate the law of the land, you know, as civic minded citizens of a democracy. Like for example, saying that such a "law" (if it can be called that) is complete pants.

How about if we say their laws are complete pants like hair coverings? No problem with that? Huh

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 40485
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #32 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:45pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 5:10pm:

cods wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 4:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 3:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:

She's not a witness, dear, she's there to support her husband. The judge is making a point.

And not an unreasonable one

That the Muselman shall be refused his or her choice of attire?

Strangely, not even FD or the old boy will publicly admit to backing that one. Freeedom, you see.

You are lying as usual.

No ten rupee for you, Paki.

I'm with the judge on this one. Face coverings should be banned in court.

Why in a court? And why for someone merely sitting in the audience? What possible reason would the judge (or you for that matter) give for disallowing this? Are you in favour of dictating to women what they can and can't wear in any other setting?

how would you know it is a women gandalf???>...

Excuse I, dear, are you saying trannies should not be allowed in a court?

Please explain.

A sexual pervert like a lady boy like you is not the same as a political pervert like a niqabi.

Muslims undermine the legal system for their own pervert reasons which are not necessarily the same as the gays undermining it for their own pervert purposes.

Gays, muslims, greens, multiculturalists, blacks, pinks, supremacists, nazis, commies, every idiotic identity group and special bleater - they are all the same at heart.

They all know better, the stupid, ignorant, arrogant bastards. No compromise for them, the shitheads.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:51pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47351
At my desk.

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #33 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 3:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:

She's not a witness, dear, she's there to support her husband. The judge is making a point.

And not an unreasonable one

That the Muselman shall be refused his or her choice of attire?

Strangely, not even FD or the old boy will publicly admit to backing that one. Freeedom, you see.

You are lying as usual.

No ten rupee for you, Paki.

I'm with the judge on this one. Face coverings should be banned in court.

Why in a court? And why for someone merely sitting in the audience? What possible reason would the judge (or you for that matter) give for disallowing this? Are you in favour of dictating to women what they can and can't wear in any other setting?

In a court, because it can be used to intimidate. Imagine if a few dozen KKK members turned up to a racially charged trial and sat silently in the back with their face covered. Or even worse, Muslims.

Their sex is irrelevant. The same rules should apply for all. I am also supportive of forcing people to remove motorcycle helmets in banks.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

cods wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 4:21pm:

how would you know it is a women gandalf???>...

And why does it matter? What if a cross-dresser came in?

If she is to be a witness, then that is a completely different matter, but sitting in the audience? If they are worried about security, the woman herself is prepared to have identity/security check with a female security person.

You are the one who made it about women Gandalf. I used gender neutral language. You should try to be more inclusive.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 92253 Gender:	Re: Judge 'unreasonable' Reply #34 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:49pm Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:36pm: Not in court, pajama boy, not in court. Or on the street, dear boy, or on the street.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92253
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #35 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:52pm

Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 5:10pm:

cods wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 4:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 3:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:

She's not a witness, dear, she's there to support her husband. The judge is making a point.

And not an unreasonable one

That the Muselman shall be refused his or her choice of attire?

Strangely, not even FD or the old boy will publicly admit to backing that one. Freeedom, you see.

You are lying as usual.

No ten rupee for you, Paki.

I'm with the judge on this one. Face coverings should be banned in court.

Why in a court? And why for someone merely sitting in the audience? What possible reason would the judge (or you for that matter) give for disallowing this? Are you in favour of dictating to women what they can and can't wear in any other setting?

how would you know it is a women gandalf???>...

Excuse I, dear, are you saying trannies should not be allowed in a court?

Please explain.

A sexual pervert like a lady boy like you is not the same as a political pervert like a niqabi.

Muslims undermine the legal system for their own pervert reasons which are not necessarily the same as the gays undermining it for their own pervert purposes.

Gays, muslims, greens, multiculturalists, blacks, pinks, supremacists, nazis, commies, every idiotic identity group and special bleater - they are all the same at heart.

They all know better, the stupid, ignorant, arrogant bastards. No compromise for them, the shitheads.

So we're superior to the niqabis and bearded numpties, eh?

Is that because they're tinted?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92253
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #36 - Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:56pm

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 3:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 5:30pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2018 at 1:05pm:

She's not a witness, dear, she's there to support her husband. The judge is making a point.

And not an unreasonable one

That the Muselman shall be refused his or her choice of attire?

Strangely, not even FD or the old boy will publicly admit to backing that one. Freeedom, you see.

You are lying as usual.

No ten rupee for you, Paki.

I'm with the judge on this one. Face coverings should be banned in court.

Why in a court? And why for someone merely sitting in the audience? What possible reason would the judge (or you for that matter) give for disallowing this? Are you in favour of dictating to women what they can and can't wear in any other setting?

In a court, because it can be used to intimidate. Imagine if a few dozen KKK members turned up to a racially charged trial and sat silently in the back with their face covered. Or even worse, Muslims.

Their sex is irrelevant. The same rules should apply for all. I am also supportive of forcing people to remove motorcycle helmets in banks.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 5:56pm:

cods wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 4:21pm:

how would you know it is a women gandalf???>...

And why does it matter? What if a cross-dresser came in?

If she is to be a witness, then that is a completely different matter, but sitting in the audience? If they are worried about security, the woman herself is prepared to have identity/security check with a female security person.

You are the one who made it about women Gandalf. I used gender neutral language. You should try to be more inclusive.

You're also in support of removing one's helmet at the bank, are you?

Looks like we're veering dangerously close to sustainable fishing practices and carbon taxes here, FD.

Bring it back to the Muselman, please. We'll move onto other policies when we're done with him.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #37 - Feb 20^th, 2018 at 2:03pm

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

In a court, because it can be used to intimidate. Imagine if a few dozen KKK members turned up to a racially charged trial and sat silently in the back with their face covered. Or even worse, Muslims.

If you can make this absurd leap, you can literally make up any excuse for any setting to justify removing women's freedom. That you have to resort to comparing muslim women in veils to the KKK just shows the absurd lengths you are prepared to resort to. I mean if you can justify that, the sky's the limit: a veiled woman sitting on a park bench? Obviously unacceptable - as they are clearly no different from nazis and the KKK terrorizing innocent families picnicking and playing Frisbee.

Quote:

You are the one who made it about women Gandalf. I used gender neutral language. You should try to be more inclusive.

Yes, because you are attempting to hide your hypocrisy. Lets see, we've got courtrooms, banks - what other settings does this great defender of women's freedom advocate banning women from veiling?

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

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92253
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #38 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 2:03pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

In a court, because it can be used to intimidate. Imagine if a few dozen KKK members turned up to a racially charged trial and sat silently in the back with their face covered. Or even worse, Muslims.

If you can make this absurd leap, you can literally make up any excuse for any setting to justify removing women's freedom. That you have to resort to comparing muslim women in veils to the KKK just shows the absurd lengths you are prepared to resort to. I mean if you can justify that, the sky's the limit: a veiled woman sitting on a park bench? Obviously unacceptable - as they are clearly no different from nazis and the KKK terrorizing innocent families picnicking and playing Frisbee.

Quote:

You are the one who made it about women Gandalf. I used gender neutral language. You should try to be more inclusive.

Yes, because you are attempting to hide your hypocrisy. Lets see, we've got courtrooms, banks - what other settings does this great defender of women's freedom advocate banning women from veiling?

Women's rights marches?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47351
At my desk.

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #39 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm

Quote:

If you can make this absurd leap, you can literally make up any excuse for any setting to justify removing women's freedom.

You may not have noticed Gandalf, but the courts are there to take away people's freedom. You are correct that people could make up any excuse they want, but you are wrong to imply this automatically follows.

Quote:

That you have to resort to comparing muslim women in veils to the KKK just shows the absurd lengths you are prepared to resort to.

They both cover the face Gandalf. They are both emblems of a political movement that uses violence to intimidate and silence people. Would you agree that Islam is a greater threat to freedom and democracy than the KKK?

Quote:

Yes, because you are attempting to hide your hypocrisy. Lets see, we've got courtrooms, banks - what other settings does this great defender of women's freedom advocate banning women from veiling?

None that I can think of right now Gandalf. You can untwist your panties. Do you support people's 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava?

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: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #40 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:58pm

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

They both cover the face Gandalf. They are both emblems of a political movement that uses violence to intimidate and silence people. Would you agree that Islam is a greater threat to freedom and democracy than the KKK?

Even ignoring this absurd comparison, you are wrong to frame this as some sort of political activism - rather than what it really is - a woman's desire to support her husband in court dressed in her normal 'going out' dress. The judge should actually be allowed to apply common sense and figure out which face-covering audience members enter the court specifically as an act of political intimidation - and which ones are there in their normal attire to support their husbands (or other family members).

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

Do you support people's 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava?

Of course not, and for a very good reason. People who walk into banks with balaclavas have a history of committing crimes and threatening people's lives. On the other hand I've never once heard of a veiled woman in a courtroom (or even a man disguised as a veiled woman) committing any crime - ever. Have you? And even if you or the judge are concerned about a possible security threat, the woman herself had agreed to a security check by a female security person. I guess I might even consider supporting a person being allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank if they were prepared to undergo similar checks as the veiled woman was prepared to undergo.

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

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #41 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

They both cover the face Gandalf. They are both emblems of a political movement that uses violence to intimidate and silence people. Would you agree that Islam is a greater threat to freedom and democracy than the KKK?

Even ignoring this absurd comparison, you are wrong to frame this as some sort of political activism - rather than what it really is - a woman's desire to support her husband in court dressed in her normal 'going out' dress. The judge should actually be allowed to apply common sense and figure out which face-covering audience members enter the court specifically as an act of political intimidation - and which ones are there in their normal attire to support their husbands (or other family members).

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

Do you support people's 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava?

Of course not, and for a very good reason. People who walk into banks with balaclavas have a history of committing crimes and threatening people's lives. On the other hand I've never once heard of a veiled woman in a courtroom (or even a man disguised as a veiled woman) committing any crime - ever. Have you? And even if you or the judge are concerned about a possible security threat, the woman herself had agreed to a security check by a female security person. I guess I might even consider supporting a person being allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank if they were prepared to undergo similar checks as the veiled woman was prepared to undergo.

but court isn't normal going dress.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92253
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #42 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 4:09pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

They both cover the face Gandalf. They are both emblems of a political movement that uses violence to intimidate and silence people. Would you agree that Islam is a greater threat to freedom and democracy than the KKK?

Even ignoring this absurd comparison, you are wrong to frame this as some sort of political activism - rather than what it really is - a woman's desire to support her husband in court dressed in her normal 'going out' dress. The judge should actually be allowed to apply common sense and figure out which face-covering audience members enter the court specifically as an act of political intimidation - and which ones are there in their normal attire to support their husbands (or other family members).

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

Do you support people's 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava?

Of course not, and for a very good reason. People who walk into banks with balaclavas have a history of committing crimes and threatening people's lives. On the other hand I've never once heard of a veiled woman in a courtroom (or even a man disguised as a veiled woman) committing any crime - ever. Have you? And even if you or the judge are concerned about a possible security threat, the woman herself had agreed to a security check by a female security person. I guess I might even consider supporting a person being allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank if they were prepared to undergo similar checks as the veiled woman was prepared to undergo.

but court isn't normal going dress.

That's right. You have to at least wear a tracksuit. No thongs or singlets, gents.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92253
Gender: male

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #43 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 4:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

They both cover the face Gandalf. They are both emblems of a political movement that uses violence to intimidate and silence people. Would you agree that Islam is a greater threat to freedom and democracy than the KKK?

Even ignoring this absurd comparison, you are wrong to frame this as some sort of political activism - rather than what it really is - a woman's desire to support her husband in court dressed in her normal 'going out' dress. The judge should actually be allowed to apply common sense and figure out which face-covering audience members enter the court specifically as an act of political intimidation - and which ones are there in their normal attire to support their husbands (or other family members).

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:22pm:

Do you support people's 'right' to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava?

Of course not, and for a very good reason. People who walk into banks with balaclavas have a history of committing crimes and threatening people's lives. On the other hand I've never once heard of a veiled woman in a courtroom (or even a man disguised as a veiled woman) committing any crime - ever. Have you? And even if you or the judge are concerned about a possible security threat, the woman herself had agreed to a security check by a female security person. I guess I might even consider supporting a person being allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank if they were prepared to undergo similar checks as the veiled woman was prepared to undergo.

Well, yes, but how would we know if they're committing any crimes or not? They could be doing anything under those burqas.

But forget about any criminal precedent, FD is aiming at crime prevention. Wearing a burqa could tempt a Muslim into committing a crime. How do we know they won't be inspired to kill the judge or blow up the courtroom? These people are Muslims, after all. They're under orders.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47351
At my desk.

Re: Judge 'unreasonable'
Reply #44 - Feb 21^st, 2018 at 7:15pm

Quote:

Even ignoring this absurd comparison, you are wrong to frame this as some sort of political activism - rather than what it really is - a woman's desire to support her husband in court dressed in her normal 'going out' dress.

How is this any different from the desire of a member of the KKK (or their spouse) wanting to defend a KKK member who is on charges of KKK related terrorism by turning up to court in a white hood? Are you saying that freedom of dress only counts if you wear your 'going out' clothes?

Quote:

The judge should actually be allowed to apply common sense and figure out which face-covering audience members enter the court specifically as an act of political intimidation

That's exactly how it works Gandalf. The judge was not in any way compelled to ban face coverings.

Quote:

- and which ones are there in their normal attire to support their husbands (or other family members).

So Muslim women cover their face to support their husbands?

Quote:

On the other hand I've never once heard of a veiled woman in a courtroom (or even a man disguised as a veiled woman) committing any crime - ever. Have you?

Sure. They wear the letterbox outfit while committing acts of terrorism.

Quote:

And even if you or the judge are concerned about a possible security threat, the woman herself had agreed to a security check by a female security person. I guess I might even consider supporting a person being allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank if they were prepared to undergo similar checks as the veiled woman was prepared to undergo.

How about a KKK hood? But only because they want to be there to support a fallen brother....

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged