Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14
Send Topic Print
Sonia Kruger (Read 9861 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #30 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 8:33pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 4:02pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 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.


So it's legal to racially vilify people if you have the statistics to back it up?

Do you agree that all charges against Kruger were dismissed, and would have also been dismissed if it were a Nazi rather than a Muslim on the receiving end?

Quote:
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).


If they had bothered to try to substantiate it, do you think they would have?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45543
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #31 - Feb 21st, 2019 at 11:13pm
 
Fake Media and its fake looks.  Grin

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 #32 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 8:57am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 8:33pm:
So it's legal to racially vilify people if you have the statistics to back it up?


Based on this ruling and other precedents such as the Bolt case, being unsubstantiated is clearly at the heart of the very defnition of vilification. One could even say that it is not possible to come up with a substantiated claim that would count as vilification.

freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 8:33pm:
Do you agree that all charges against Kruger were dismissed


She wasn't charged. Someone took her to this tribunal complaining of racial vilification. The tribunal ruled that it was vilification, but not racial vilification. Those are the facts, its probably best if we stick to those.

freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 8:33pm:
and would have also been dismissed if it were a Nazi rather than a Muslim on the receiving end?


I agree that the tribunal would also have ruled that there was no racial vilification in the case of a nazi complaint. My question though was whether or not they would have ruled it as non-racial vilification - as they did in this case?

freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2019 at 8:33pm:
If they had bothered to try to substantiate it, do you think they would have?


clearly she couldn't be bothered, and thats why she didn't. A less charitable assessment would be she had no idea what she was talking about and was simply making stuff up.
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #33 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 8:58am
 
Quote:
Based on this ruling


What do you think the ruling was?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #34 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 9:04am
 
The full transcript of the decision - worth a read:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5c6481bee4b0196eea4045ea

Interesting that the decision of vilification is clearly tied to making unsubstantiated claims:

Quote:
Consideration
Broadly, the Tribunal accepts that the purpose of the discussion in question was to have a debate about the size of the Australian Muslim population, the levels of Muslim migration and whether an increase in the level of either increases the likelihood of future terrorist attacks in Australia. Further, the Tribunal accepts that to have a public discussion on such matters was in the public interest. Finally we accept the Respondents were acting in good faith without malice and not for an improper purpose.

However, we cannot accept that the remarks of Ms Kruger were “reasonable”. She expressed the view that the size of Australia’s Muslim population meant there should be no further Muslim migration irrespective of any other matter. This appears to be unsupported by any evidence or material placed before the Tribunal.

The principal difficulty we have with Ms Kruger’s comments is that she suggests that 500,000 “Australian Muslims” is too many and that, in and of itself, such a number of Muslims living in Australia poses a safety threat to persons in Australia. Consistently with this proposition, Ms Kruger concludes that all Muslim migration should be stopped because any addition to the number of Muslims in Australia increases the risk of terrorist attacks.

Thereby, Ms Kruger goes further than Mr Andrew Bolt, who accepts in his article that “truly, the number of Muslims in the country does not tell the full story”. Mr Andrew Bolt points out that Germany, whilst having possibly more Muslims than France, may have escaped the same level of terrorism as France “perhaps because many of its Muslims came from Turkey, more westernised than the North African countries’’ which are the source of most Muslims in France.

Accordingly, the point of Mr Andrew Bolt’s article is that it is the form of the Muslim migration, not the mere fact of Muslim migration, which is of particular importance. It is, as he put it, the “open door” policy of Muslim migration that may contribute to terrorist attacks. Ultimately, Ms Kruger, on the other hand, was putting forward a stereotype in suggesting that it was the size of the Muslim population in Australia per se which leads to terrorist attacks.

In our view, Ms Kruger could have expressed her comments in a more measured manner to avoid a finding of vilification. For example, she could have referred to the need for Australia to engage in greater security checking of people wishing to migrate to Australia who may happen to be Muslims and the need to prevent a drift towards radicalisation amongst Muslims currently in Australia, rather than simply stating that 500,000 Muslims represents an unacceptable safety risk which justifies stopping all Muslim migration.

It may have been possible for either of the other commentators – Ms Lisa Wilkinson or Mr David Campbell – to make this comment and then seek to have Ms Kruger agree with that. This also would have likely prevented the broadcast amounting to the vilification of Muslims in Australia. Unfortunately, while Mr Campbell appeared to disagree with Ms Kruger, Ms Kruger’s public remarks were still preserved and amounted to a stereotypical attack on all Muslims in Australia.


Basically, simply saying 500 000 muslims is too many and that this fact in and of itself somehow means there is an unacceptable security risk - is "unreasonable" and "unmeasured" - BECAUSE it is a completely unsubstantiated statement - and therefore vilification.
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #35 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 9:09am
 
So the judge 'ruled' that it is African Muslims that are the problem and the Turkish ones are not as bad (because Andrew Bolt told him so), and that he thinks Kruger could have been more reasonable?

What exactly is the point of this court?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #36 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:11am
 
The take home message I got from the ruling was that saying that we have an unacceptable Islamic terrorist threat based on nothing other than citing the number of muslim in Australia - is unacceptable and amounts to vilifying muslims.
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #37 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:25am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:11am:
The take home message I got from the ruling was that saying that we have an unacceptable Islamic terrorist threat based on nothing other than citing the number of muslim in Australia - is unacceptable and amounts to vilifying muslims.


Do you think he shook his fist at them?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94088
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #38 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:30am
 
We already spend over $1 billion per annum on
fighting Islamic terrorism so Sonia had a valid point.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #39 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:50am
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:30am:

We already spend over $1 billion per annum on fighting Islamic terrorism


so Sonia had a valid point.





Imagine if there were    NO     followers of ISLAM, at all, living in Australia !!!!!

Australia would save $billions and $billions a year, from welfare and security costs relating to the followers of ISLAM, and on all of those followers of ISLAM, in SUPERMAX prison.

And crime, drug importations, and the associated costs to the AFP and ASIO to try to counter 'their' influence.


And the many terror attacks [loss of life], in Australia, perpetrated by followers of ISLAM.


It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.


Just imagine,  an Australia with    NO     moslems, at all !!!!!




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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 130890
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #40 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:57am
 
Yadda wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:50am:
Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:30am:

We already spend over $1 billion per annum on fighting Islamic terrorism


so Sonia had a valid point.





Imagine if there were    NO     followers of ISLAM, at all, living in Australia !!!!!

Australia would save $billions and $billions a year, from welfare and security costs relating to the followers of ISLAM, and on all of those followers of ISLAM, in SUPERMAX prison.

And crime, drug importations, and the associated costs to the AFP and ASIO to try to counter 'their' influence.


And the many terror attacks [loss of life], in Australia, perpetrated by followers of ISLAM.


It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.


Just imagine,  an Australia with    NO     moslems, at all !!!!!






Just imagine an Australia with NO Christians at all.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #41 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:07pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:25am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:11am:
The take home message I got from the ruling was that saying that we have an unacceptable Islamic terrorist threat based on nothing other than citing the number of muslim in Australia - is unacceptable and amounts to vilifying muslims.


Do you think he shook his fist at them?


If you are asking me if any meaningful action was taken, the answer is no.

However you can deliver a meaningful message that is useful in its own right - without needing to take any specific action.

Do you agree that merely citing the size of the Australian muslim community (500 thousand) is an insufficient justification on its own for labelling the entire community a security threat, and is an unfair slur on individual law-abiding muslims, and therefore amounts to vilification?
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 #42 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:07pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:11am:
The take home message I got from the ruling was that saying that we have an unacceptable Islamic terrorist threat based on nothing other than citing the number of muslim in Australia - is unacceptable and amounts to vilifying muslims.


You are trying to twist the story, as usual, to make it look like Muzlums are victims. The ruling was a way of avoiding calling Kruger a Nazi, an Islamophobe or a White Nationalist, while condemning her at the same time. Kruger's comment for which she was condemned was about the number of incidents of Islamic terrorism being related to the number of Muzlums in the population, a statistic that is hard to refute. The incident that prompted Kruger's comment was the murder of 86 in Nice, France. But what are those 86, as long as your precious illusions are maintained?
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #43 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 1:10pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 12:07pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:25am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:11am:
The take home message I got from the ruling was that saying that we have an unacceptable Islamic terrorist threat based on nothing other than citing the number of muslim in Australia - is unacceptable and amounts to vilifying muslims.


Do you think he shook his fist at them?


If you are asking me if any meaningful action was taken, the answer is no.

However you can deliver a meaningful message that is useful in its own right - without needing to take any specific action.

Do you agree that merely citing the size of the Australian muslim community (500 thousand) is an insufficient justification on its own for labelling the entire community a security threat, and is an unfair slur on individual law-abiding muslims, and therefore amounts to vilification?


How is it 'useful'? Do you mean the bit about the African Muslims being the real problem?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Sonia Kruger
Reply #44 - Feb 22nd, 2019 at 1:49pm
 




...



greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2019 at 11:57am:




Sorry greggery,       the argument you are making has no relevance, and no pertinence, for, or towards, any Christian in Australia, today.

Witness, the lack of the murdering/killing of their daughters [by their fathers and their brothers],
of young Australian women, who engage in sex before marriage,
....unless they a moslem.




The laws which your image refers to, apply to the ancient Israelite's [the Hebrews], a nation of people who had just left [escaped] Egypt.


Those ancient Hebrews, were a people, who had agreed to enter into a holy covenant with their God [the God of Jacob],
to obey his laws and to separate themselves from all other peoples and nations
[and thereby, show themselves to be separate from all other peoples and nations].




Leviticus 11:44
For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:


Leviticus 11:45
For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.


Leviticus 19:2
Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.


Leviticus 20:26
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.




"And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do....."

- Exodus 19:8



.



AS AN ASIDE.....


greggery,

But moslems, in 2019, still murder their daughters, for bringing religious shame upon their family.

------- >


WWW search....
muslim honour killings, uk


WWW search....
Think 'Honour' Killings Don't Happen In The UK? Think Again


WWW search....
Muslim father 'murdered his THREE daughters in honour killing'


WWW search....
Muslim girl 'who had throat slit in honour killing' thanked



.



"Long ago, far away. These things don't happen no more, nowadays."

- Bob Dylan


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
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14
Send Topic Print