FD blames Islam.

You?

Yadda wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 10:14pm:



IMAGE....


SEZ IT ALL, REALLY.

Eh ?




BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!!!

IMAGE....






AND, THERE'S MORE!!!!!

IMAGE.....





It is sad, i didn't find the image i was searching for.

But it is there, in my archive.

Where's      Unforgettable ???

Shouldn't he make an appearance soon,       to rebuke me,       .....for telling lies about the followers of ISLAM ?

         

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:


Freediver and Yadda are paid shills. The Ozpolitic surreptitious bigot does it for sport.

FD is actually a good example of the typical sort of modern threat to freedom and democracy. Firstly by his own standards he is complicit in attacks on free speech - when he stated some time ago that those who don't stand up against attacks on freedom, are complicit in it. Thus when FD, day after day, ignores and furthermore spinelessly apologises for those here who constantly attack people's freedoms (ban the burqa, ban halal etc etc) - he is also attacking freedom according to his own definition.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say people who don't stand up against attacks on freedom are complicit in those attacks - yet still there is something deeply sinister about FD's modus operandi here. For me, one of the big alarm bells was when he candidly declared that he might support those who attack muslim's freedoms - if the extremists and terrorists cannot be reigned in. This was particularly galling as I immediately recalled FD's noble words where he said that defending freedom is most important when confronted by speech that is most disagreeable to you. Thus clearly FD has little compunction in dishing his most sacred beliefs at any opportune moment.

Like most self-styled free speech warriors, FD only ever speaks out about perceived attacks on privileged white people - usually racists. Free speech is merely a cynical tool to push a right wing agenda, by attacking minorities, attacking progressives who defend minorities, and to try and highlight how oppressed rich white people are. Here, FD's musings about freedom are only ever placed within an anti-Islam, or anti-minority (aborigines are another favoured target) context, in which the "victims" are white privileged people - who are frequently also racists and bigots. A cynic would say that the real agenda wasn't freedom at all - but attacking minorities.

Yet, as with most bigotry, FD's ruse has been slowly unraveling, and his racist agenda has become exposed. The use of blatant lies - typically an essential tool for racist agendas ("muslims [en masse] say/do this terribly sinister thing" - when it is based solely on what he heard a single muslim say), as well as increasingly shrill resort to outrageous blanket slurs (workforce participation statistics "prove muslims are lazy"), his 'moral equivalence' arguments to equate muslims to nazis, not to mention his deeply disturbing misogynism (belittling women in burqas as being in a "letterbox outfit", and most shockingly, wishing rape on certain women)  - expose a hateful and bigoted agenda.

Such hateful hypcoricy - which sadly is not uncommon in these times - is one of, if not the greatest threats to our freedom and democracy. Its these people who will facilitate the normalising of minority persecution, coupled with the inevitable removal of their freedom - and the worst thing, they will justify it in the name of "freedom" itself. In fact, we already see this very behavior on a daily basis: ban women from dressing in a non-skimpy swimsuit on the beaches of France? - say nothing but ridicule the affected women and attack the 'apologists' who are up in arms about it; calls to ban the hijab on the basis that its not mere clothing, but an actual piece of "enemy uniform"? Say nothing except praise the person who said it as 'not pretending to be something he's not' - even when that same person claims to be standing up for "western values".

So this is likely how our freedom and democracy will be lost: the anti-freedom bigots will finally have their way - due largely because of the enabling of the freedom warrior hypocrites - like FD. Unfortunately for FD, as Niemoller would predict, after the minorities and the do-gooders, the freedom haters will next turn to him - and guess what? There won't be any spineless apologists left to defend him.

Can you cite a greater modern threat to freedom and democracy than Islam Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 10^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:


I don't know, G. I think as long as FD stays on target with the Muslims and Boongs and their apologists, he should be okay. He can just keep switching onto the next enemy, and the next. There's plenty of tinted races to go around, you know.

Maybe one day, FD will get to fulfil his dream and rape them
With a cactus.

You gotta have a dream, no? Freeeedom.

Well, there are no free and democratic Muslim countries.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2018 at 6:16pm:


The Nutter leader Donny Trump would be up there.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 11:09am:


Ask me, FD.

Let's ask Charlie Hebdo and Salman Rushdie.

Do you think people who speak out against the burqa ban are the biggest threat to freedom and democracy?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:



I'm not FD, but i will tell you nonetheless....

ANSWER;
#1, people who want to criticise Islam
BECAUSE; moslems,      will, if they are unopposed,      seek to normalise the practice their religion [locally],
as Theocratic totalitarianism.





Quote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/video-imam-whose-son-was-training-school-shoo...

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:


No no, let's ask protesters in Charlottesville who don't like being murdered, kids separated from their parents at the US border for being tinted, or all those Brexit voters who've changed their minds, realising they've been cheated.

The biggest threat to what you call liberal democracy, FD, is your very own bigotry. You acknowledge this too. You said you changed your mind.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest threat to the West since Hitler.

The fact that it's the return of white supremacist totalitarianism is demonstrated by your preference for the KKK over Muslim women doing their shopping. This one says it all.

You have abandoned "liberal democracy", I.e, global development through free trade and ideas, for a race war. Remember?

You changed your mind. The fact that you must use porkies to spread your agenda is the tell-all. Ultimately, the real tool is hatred. You offer a return to Apartheid, the White Australia Policy and Nazi Europe in return for porkies and bile.

It is a jolly world, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:59pm:



gandalf,

I do not entertain such fantasies or imaginings.



My feet and my perceptions are firmly planted in the real world, and upon the world i see around me.



As to my attitude toward the moslem.....

My firm obligation to my God,      is to treat all others fairly.

As i myself, would want to be treated.





But that does not mean that i should excuse, or trust,
those persons whom i know, full-well, follow a philosophy which encourages them, to promote deception, and violence, and murder, and violent religious bigotry, as a supposed religious virtue.

And ISLAM does promote the employment of the deception of non-moslems, as a means for the followers of ISLAM, to seek to achieve their nefarious objectives, in this world.


.


IMAGE...





Quote:
Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-isla...



.



THE PEACEFUL ['MODERATE'] FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM;

Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece



.



Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


As per......

Matthew 19:16
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18  He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


All Torah law statutes....



All of the above were quoted by Jesus, from the book(s) of the law, the Torah ['the laws of Moses'],
Exodus 20:12-16
Deuteronomy 5:16-20

And including,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
From, Leviticus 19:18

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:42pm:


Are you shifting the goal posts already Gandalf?

Do you think people who speak out against the burqa ban are the biggest threat to freedom and democracy?

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:


No. And I don't even know why you are asking this. It makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said.

In case you are still confused, this is what I asked:

Tell me FD, whose freedoms do you think are under greater threat in the west:

1. people who want to criticise Islam?
2. muslims who want to practice their religion (things like wearing the burqa)?

Feel free to have a go answering it.

goldkam wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:40pm:


Could you explain that please?

goldkam wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:47pm:


Can you provide me with the specific legislative documents?

IAussie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:49pm:


I am not sure if you are quizzing me or are unsure. But every Australian should at least know the right to religion is contained within (expressively) the Constitution. It is also contained with state Anti Discrimination laws.

Moving more broadly. It is also contained in the UDHR.

Aussie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 3:10pm:


Given that a) wearing the burqa is generally acknowledged as expressing someone's religion and b) the constitution says that no legislation can be enacted that violates freedom of religion - surely the right to wear a burqa is already a given?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:51pm:


FD cunningly avoids calls to ban the burqa. Ask him - he won't say.

What FD wants is a ban on Muslims. If you catch him out in a moment of honesty, he'll tell you that.

I know that with respect to Queensland, the answer is...no.

The Queensland Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of "religious belief or religious activity;"

So, the Qld Government is free to legislate against all and every face covering thing so long as it is a prohibition against EVERY Queenslander.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:33pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:


Unless you're a cheese-eating stool-dweller who flew here.

Aussie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 3:10pm:


Of course there is not. Just like there is not anything contained within legislation relating to right to wear priest garments, the right to read the bible. These are all part of the right to religion, in other words they are what make up and complete a religion. Just like the wearing of the Burqa makes up Islam.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 11:49pm:



Wearing shoes is universal and thus that particular action doesn't distinguish nor categorise one by their religion. Wearing a burqa does however distinguish a Muslim from an individual practising another religion. The wearing of the burqa is affirmed by religious doctrine and the various texts that are utilised within Islam. It is a profession of faith. Just like monks profess their faith toward Buddha and the Buddhist religion through garments and certain rituals and rules.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 5:05pm:


Apparently the UK has that very law - that prohibits people from being forced to wear something against their will.

Impractical? Perhaps, but Britain is at least trying to uphold freedom of expression/freedom of religion - while dealing with the oppression issue.

When the Belgium ban came in, its said there were something like 30 muslim women in the whole country who wore a full face covering. There are similarly miniscule numbers in the Netherlands Its absurd. You could literally keep a file on every one of them to ensure they are not being oppressed (if thats what you are really worried about - which we know most proponents are not). These figures should tell you all you need to know about what behind this ban.

goldkam wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 8:40am:


True, but it's not a prerequisite for being a Muslim.

The Soviets had a similar issue when they banned circumcision for Jews. There, it was the opposite: they were banning a religious practice.

They allowed circumcision for Muslims as they deemed it to be cultural, not religious. Circumcision is not required in Islam, but it's indispensable within Judaism. For Jews, circumcision is a blood covenant with G_d.

Burqas are not indispensable in Islam, so we could say it's not a religious requirement. However, free expression is still a driving factor in our model of government, based on the Westminster system. I can only see a ban applicable on the grounds of security.

The reason the French can legally ban the burqa is, despite their liberty, they also have fraternity and solidarity as constitutional factors. In France, the government can rule on the notion of "Frenchness", or what is deemed to be culturally important to the nation (rather than the individual).

Our system is much more English, and much more individualist than the French or Soviet constitutional models.

And remember, Australia has never been a beacon of liberty. We've always been quick to ban things and Customs are the worst. For most of our history as a nation, we've placed limits on race. I doubt the White Australia Policy would be deemed constitutional today.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 1:27pm:


Of course it is. But that doesn't mean we should legislate laws to enforce those standards. And in fact there's a very good reason not to legislate laws. Its one of the few valid slippery slope arguments. Burqa ban today, headscarf tomorrow. Until we get to French-level absurdity of literally banning women from wearing skin and hair-covering swimwear at a beach.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 2:06pm:


That's true too, but we can't constitutionally ban them.

I would, however, like to see women - prisoners - come out of the dark.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 1:22pm:


Well, let's not jump to any conclusions here, G. Let's do the right thing and let FD to speak for himself. That's curious.

FD, do you support a ban on the burqa?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 6:04pm:


No need, FD. Just say whether you support banning the burqa. We're all friends here. I've said, G's said, we've all said what we think.

You?

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:


Okay....so let's clear the air, Effendi.  Do you support the right of Muslim women to wear the burqa, and/or whatever else they decide they will wear?

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:


Except in a courtroom FD, you should include that little disclaimer.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 9:25am:


I'm pretty sure you can do that wearing a veil.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 9:57am:


So freedom of speech and freedom of movement can go out the window, so long as you don't deny Muslims the right to cover their face?

Are you actually saying you don't distinguish between bans on wearing it in public, and bans on wearing it in a courtroom?

I'm assuming you have no issue with people being banned from turning up with a carton and having a bit of a pissup while court is in session. Is the burka restriction the only courthouse restriction you have an issue with?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:



Bad example, Effendi.  Doing that is breaching existing law which says thou shalt not drink alcohol in an unlicenced public place.   

Quote:


There are many restrictions Effendi.  All imposed by petulant occupiers of ivory towers who claim that they must preserve some dignity and 'respect' in Court Rooms, instead of doing the daily routine/job which is what they monotonously do......sausage meat in, sausages out....rinse and repeat.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:


We ban alcohol all the time FD. And usually for good reasons. The burqa is not a drug that numbs your inhibitions and can make you a danger to yourself and others. So really bad analogy there.

I think the main problem you have here is that you have no reasonable justification for banning the burqa in a courtroom - especially when you attempt to justify it on the absurd grounds that it is at least as political/intimidatory/sinister as a KKK outfit. And in the original discussion I pointed out how the woman was prepared to undergo a security and identity check from a female security guard - to allay any potential risks on that front. And in case you forgot the original story - she wasn't even going to take the stand - merely wanted to be in the room to support her husband.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 5:48pm:


Excuse me, FD, you just equated a nationwide ban with a courtroom ban.

But I'm curious. Why, exactly, do you want a courtroom ban? You haven't said.

Quote:


Would you agree that it is misleading to accuse someone of supporting a ban on something when it only applies in the context of a courtroom?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:27am:

Because it might intimidate witnesses to have masked people in the gallery.

If you are going to rant about my inability to justify my position, don't you think you ought to ask me to justify my position first?

Would you agree that it is misleading to accuse someone of supporting a ban on something when it only applies in the context of a courtroom?

We always ask FD about his position.

For some reason, he won't say.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2018 at 11:12am:

This not about 'dictating to women wht to wear', bozo.
It's  about not hiding their faces.

Quote:


Would you argue that the judge's argument was "a completely irrational and baseless proposition"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am:

You are not in the blighted Middle East, bozo.  Your Muslim norms are not universal and they certainly do not apply here.

This is a society that has set its face (!) against everything your oppressive, backward religion has stood for for 1400 years.  Don't try to universalise your primitive superstitions, pal.  And certainly do not try to make it out that the West OWES you respect or recognition for your backwardness and primitivism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm:


From memory, it was the risk of intimidating witnesses.

Frank wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57pm:


It's the polite thing to do, dear.

You keep offering.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am:


Are you suggesting the judge would allow men to wear masks in the court gallery?