Australian Politics Forum

issuevoter Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9200 The Great State of Mind Gender:	Re: Sonia Kruger Reply #15 - Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.
Back to top	No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #16 - Feb 20^th, 2019 at 4:27pm

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

I am saying that Nazi would be out of luck, just as it appears the Muslim was in this case. Unless you think being accused of vilification is a form of punishment, in which case Brian Ross would be the most feared person in Australia.

I'm asking if you think you would get the same ruling by the CAT if the same thing had happened to a nazi. Specifically: if Sonia Kruger or anyone else had fronted up to a mainstream TV show and said she was she wanted the immigration of nazis to stop because she thought an increase in nazis was correlated with an increase in violence. In the event that this was taken to the CAT by a nazi who felt vilified - would the CAT have ruled that this was vilification of nazis, and that it "amounted to a stereotypical attack on all Nazis in Australia" and had the capacity to "encourage hatred towards, or serious contempt for, Australian Nazis by ordinary members of the Australian population"?

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: 47521 At my desk.	Re: Sonia Kruger Reply #17 - Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:23pm Sure, it would encourage contempt for Nazis. I don't think Nazis would actually do it of course. They don't have the victimhood thing that Muslims do. What do you think the ruling was?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20981
A cat with a view

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #18 - Feb 20^th, 2019 at 10:45pm

issuevoter wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.

If some ISLAMIC group brings a legal action against you,
tell it to the magistrate/judge. !!!

But you better be able to prove that your 'vilification' of the whole moslem community is justified [based in truth].

The problem today, is, that the society at large [in nations like Australia], are unwilling to acknowledge, what a deceitful, vicious, evil and violent philosophy ISLAM really is.

The prevailing zeitgeist, of the group, won't hear any words said against ISLAM.

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

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #19 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 6:17am

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 10:45pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.

If some ISLAMIC group brings a legal action against you,
tell it to the magistrate/judge. !!!

But you better be able to prove that your 'vilification' of the whole moslem community is justified [based in truth].

The problem today, is, that the society at large [in nations like Australia], are unwilling to acknowledge, what a deceitful, vicious, evil and violent philosophy ISLAM really is.

The prevailing zeitgeist, of the group, won't hear any words said against ISLAM.

The operative word is "if."

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20981
A cat with a view

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #20 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 7:08am

issuevoter wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 6:17am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 10:45pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.

If some ISLAMIC group brings a legal action against you,
tell it to the magistrate/judge. !!!

But you better be able to prove that your 'vilification' of the whole moslem community is justified [based in truth].

The problem today, is, that the society at large [in nations like Australia], are unwilling to acknowledge, what a deceitful, vicious, evil and violent philosophy ISLAM really is.

The prevailing zeitgeist, of the group, won't hear any words said against ISLAM.

The operative word is "if."

If moslems at any time, feel they are being vilified, moslems deserve to feel [themselves being] vilified ???

vilify = = speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.

Moslems will argue [in our courts] that the open vilification of moslems [whether objectively justified or not] is 'hate speech',
and that it should be outlawed in any 'liberal' society.

Q.
How do we [who oppose the spread of the influence of ISLAMIC 'culture'], 'push back' [lawfully],
against the inclination we see, in our society, to protect [in our laws], those who seek to promote a philosophy, which promotes violent religious tyranny ?

.

ISLAM is a lie and truth is killing it.
Posted by: Alaskan [in another forum]

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: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: Sonia Kruger Reply #21 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 11:05am freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:23pm: Sure, it would encourage contempt for Nazis. I don't quite follow. Why would encouraging contempt for Nazis be the reason for why a civil tribunal would rule in favour of vilification in the scenario I presented?
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

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #22 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 12:48pm

Yadda wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 7:08am:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 6:17am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 10:45pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.

If some ISLAMIC group brings a legal action against you,
tell it to the magistrate/judge. !!!

But you better be able to prove that your 'vilification' of the whole moslem community is justified [based in truth].

The problem today, is, that the society at large [in nations like Australia], are unwilling to acknowledge, what a deceitful, vicious, evil and violent philosophy ISLAM really is.

The prevailing zeitgeist, of the group, won't hear any words said against ISLAM.

The operative word is "if."

If moslems at any time, feel they are being vilified, moslems deserve to feel [themselves being] vilified ???

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it. (The vilification)

I'm not sure all Muzlums feel vilified by Sonia Kruger's remarks. Realistically, anyone should recognise the logic of the association she made. The sense of vilification indicates how uncomfortable the incident in Cannes made some Muzlums, like Ekermawi, feel about their Muzlum Brothers. Instead of facing it, they would rather make a plea of persecution. Such denialists would rather hide in Australia, than deal with the problem in Islam.

But then, if they are able to convince themselves, like Gandalf, that Australia is Islam, then they can simply pretend it is not their problem. That kind of accusation against Kruger deserves to be vilified, because it is not only unfair, its a an attempt at deceit, and therefore immoral.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39603

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #23 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 1:25pm

issuevoter wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 12:48pm:

Yadda wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 7:08am:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 6:17am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 10:45pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it.

If some ISLAMIC group brings a legal action against you,
tell it to the magistrate/judge. !!!

But you better be able to prove that your 'vilification' of the whole moslem community is justified [based in truth].

The problem today, is, that the society at large [in nations like Australia], are unwilling to acknowledge, what a deceitful, vicious, evil and violent philosophy ISLAM really is.

The prevailing zeitgeist, of the group, won't hear any words said against ISLAM.

The operative word is "if."

If moslems at any time, feel they are being vilified, moslems deserve to feel [themselves being] vilified ???

If Muzlums feel vilified, they deserve it. (The vilification)

I'm not sure all Muzlums feel vilified by Sonia Kruger's remarks. Realistically, anyone should recognise the logic of the association she made. The sense of vilification indicates how uncomfortable the incident in Cannes made some Muzlums, like Ekermawi, feel about their Muzlum Brothers. Instead of facing it, they would rather make a plea of persecution. Such denialists would rather hide in Australia, than deal with the problem in Islam.

But then, if they are able to convince themselves, like Gandalf, that Australia is Islam, then they can simply pretend it is not their problem. That kind of accusation against Kruger deserves to be vilified, because it is not only unfair, its a an attempt at deceit, and therefore immoral.

So, in your opinion, innocent people are right to feel vilified, because they have committed no crimes themselves, other than share a religious name with the perpetrators of Terrorist acts but hey, that's tough, 'cause they refuse to face the problem? Gee, that's nice and kind of you. OK, so, all White, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic descended Australians should be ok with being vilified for what their ancestors did to Indigenous Australians? I'll remember that, OK?

Bugger off, Issue, you just hate Muslims. You refuse to even spell the name of their religion correctly because you feel not doing so gives you an advantage over them. In reality, you're just another piddling little Islamophobic fool who hates people 'cause they are different to him. Tsk, tsk, you pull your bed clothes up tighter over your head and hide there, safe from the Boogey man who you've created out of your own imagination. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 46631
Gender: male

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #24 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 1:33pm

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

I am not aware of it being illegal. The only legal issue is denying the holocaust, which that guy from Adelaide got thrown in jail for. Gassing Jews would probably also get you into trouble.

Quote:

Are you saying that the Civil and Administration Tribunal would have made a ruling of vilification if some nazi had complained about someone equating increased nazi number with increased violence?

I am saying that Nazi would be out of luck, just as it appears the Muslim was in this case. Unless you think being accused of vilification is a form of punishment, in which case Brian Ross would be the most feared person in Australia.

I loved the Yugoslavian War where the Media promoted the Serbians & Croatians verses Moslems (National & National verses Religion).
Rather than Catholics & Orthodox verses Moslems.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #25 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 1:36pm

issuevoter wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 12:48pm:

I'm not sure all Muzlums feel vilified by Sonia Kruger's remarks.

I'm not sure if vilified accurately describes what I feel, but I certainly feel more than a little uncomfortable with this statement...

Quote:

"Personally I would like to see it [the immigration of Muslims] stopped now for Australia because I would like to feel safe as all of our citizens do when they go out to celebrate Australia Day and I'd like to see freedom of speech," Kruger said.

For my part I have muslim relatives who are considering applying for work visas here and take up permanent residence. Apart from what that would mean personally to me in terms of being closer to my loved ones, the idea that denying entry to these law abiding, well educated, skilled and frankly progressive muslims into this country would somehow make Sonia Kruger safer and free-er is obviously ridiculous.

Still though, a single anecdote doesn't disprove Kruger's case. Who knows, maybe she's right and that an increase in muslim immigration overall is causally related to an increased terrorist threat as well as an increased threat to our freedom. (disclaimer though - this misses the point, the point is its an unsubstantiated claim, as the tribunal noted). Either way, lets for argument sake say she's right - increased muslim immigration overall is a security and freedom threat. Even then, you are still left with individual muslims who would rightly feel agrieved - ie individuals who enter Australia and are demonstrably *NOT* any threat. Are they just acceptable collateral damage? Wouldn't it be better if we could frame the argument so that it doesn't discriminate against innocents (ie individual muslims who are not any threat)? Isn't it the case that Sonia could have saved herself a lot of trouble by just being a bit more careful with her wording - ie rather than sayinig that "muslim immigration" per se was the problem - that its actually only a problem with immigration of a tiny minority of muslims? And surely thats the point here - that muslim immigrants who came here, made a positive contribution, and are not a threat to our society in any way - would rightly feel aggrieved (vilified?) - because they are in effect being told that had they personally not immigrated, Australia would be a safer place.

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

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #26 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 2:13pm

Well if this pans out to be exactly what it says it is, then Sonia Kruger got it in one:

Germany: Former spy chief says “2,200 potential terrorists who could carry out attacks anytime” now in the country

Feb 20, 2019 9:00 am

They ain’t “right-wing extremists,” either. Danke, Merkel!

“2,000 Islamists ‘Ready to Carry Out Attacks at Any Time’ Says Former German Spy Chief,” by Virginia Hale, Breitbart, February 18, 2019:

The security threat posed by more than 2,000 Islamist terror suspects is just one example of how Angela Merkel’s “mistake” to throw open the borders continues to haunt Germany daily, the country’s former spy chief has said.

There are now “around 2,200 potential terrorists who could carry out [Islamist] attacks at any time”, the former BfV head said, adding that the number of Islamic extremists living in Germany has risen from 3,800 in 2012 to 11,500 today.

“Not only do the [migration policy] mistakes of 2015 continue to affect [the country] but they are repeated daily,” lamented Maasen, before asserting the belief it is extremely unlikely Germany would be able to successfully integrate the massive number of people who have taken up residence in the nation over the last few years.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47521
At my desk.

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #27 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 3:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 11:05am:

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Sure, it would encourage contempt for Nazis.

I don't quite follow.

Why would encouraging contempt for Nazis be the reason for why a civil tribunal would rule in favour of vilification in the scenario I presented?

As far as I can tell, the complaint against Kruger was dismissed. As would be a complaint raised by a Nazi in similar circumstances.

Quote:

Still though, a single anecdote doesn't disprove Kruger's case. Who knows, maybe she's right and that an increase in muslim immigration overall is causally related to an increased terrorist threat as well as an increased threat to our freedom. (disclaimer though - this misses the point, the point is its an unsubstantiated claim, as the tribunal noted).

Making unsubstantiated claims is not illegal Gandalf. All they have to do to substantiate it is open their eyes. And you would have to be ideologically opposed to a free market of ideas to support legal action on this basis.

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: Sonia Kruger
Reply #28 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 4:02pm

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 3:07pm:

Making unsubstantiated claims is not illegal Gandalf.

Andrew Bolt may beg to differ.

From defamation law to 18c precedents, there are actually a plethora of ways in which making unsubstantiated claims is illegal.

Had Kruger said what she said about blacks, she would have been breaking the law - and that is because her claims were unsubstantiated.

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: 20981
A cat with a view

Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #29 - Feb 21^st, 2019 at 5:11pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 1:36pm:

For my part I have muslim relatives who are considering applying for work visas here and take up permanent residence.....

....progressive muslims.....

LOL !!!!!!!

Followers of ISLAM, 'progressive' ?

gandalf,

Under what definition, of 'progressive' ?

The followers of ISLAM.....

The virtuous people.....

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred...."
Koran 58.22

"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers."
Koran 9.23

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