Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Blair Cottrel
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1500804531

Message started by freediver on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm

Title: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.

Court case an assault on 'Australian values', says UPF leader as rivals face off

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/court-case-an-assault-on-australian-values-says-upf-leader-as-rivals-face-off-20170306-gurjnx.html

Dozens of anti-racism protesters have clashed with United Patriots Front supporters outside court, after the right-wing group's leader appeared on offensive behaviour charges.

About 50 protesters and as many police officers stood outside the Melbourne Magistrates Court ahead of a scheduled court appearance by the anti-Islam group's leader, Blair Cottrell, 35, on Monday morning. It is understood a portion of the crowd were protesters parodying the extreme right.

Mr Cottrell has been charged with helping make a video "with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of" Muslims on October 4, 2015.



[Thanks Bobby]

He has previously said on social media website Facebook that he was charged over an incident in which UPF members filmed themselves beheading a dummy with a knife outside the Bendigo council's office in a protest against plans to build a mosque.

The video reportedly shows the dummy spilling fake blood on to the pavement, and men shouting "Arabic" phrases.

Mr Cottrell is also charged with defacing a footpath and the wall of a garden bed next to Bendigo City Council offices, causing $1100 worth of damage to council property and behaving in an offensive manner near the council offices.

On Monday, the anti-facist protesters screamed slogans such as  "No Nazis, never again", "Muslims are welcome, racists are not" and "You'll always lose in Melbourne, f--- off" and pushed against a police guard surrounding Mr Cottrell and his supporters as they left the court.

Outside court, he told Fairfax Media he would fight the charges, which represented a state government attack against the group, and more broadly "against Australian values".

"It's an attempt to silence us, to intimidate us, and also to create a new standard through which they can attack Australian values, break down our free speech, put us all under control."

Debbie Brennan, a spokeswoman for Campaign Against Racism and Facism, said they had organised the protest to prevent the United Patriots Front forming a "guard of honour" outside court ahead of Mr Cottrell's hearing.

"We know the importance of exercising our free speech to stop their hate speech," she said.



More photos and videos on this article:

Protests as United Patriots Front members appear in court

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/protests-as-united-patriots-front-members-appear-in-court/news-story/55a851c54527cd341cb6b1c73cad2b0a

Outside court, Mr Shortis said the dummy was beheaded to alert people that a mosque was going to be built.

“The Bendigo residents didn’t like it, we’re concerned about Islamic migration into this country because there’s correlation to increased numbers and increased acts of terrorism,” he said.


He accused the State Government of defending Islam’s “grotesque theology”.

“Australia is founded on the separation of church and state and I’ll use the words of Jacqui Lambie: ‘not on my bloody watch’.”

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:24pm


Quote:
the dummy was beheaded to alert people that a mosque was going to be built.


That was fair enough wasn't it?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:25pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.


You really need to do more research. This Hitler wanna-be is due back in court on September 4.

Hopefully he is sent to some small island to serve as a toilet cleaner, which is a bit of an intellectual stretch for this ardent supporter of Hitler's social and political agenda's.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:27pm

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.


You really need to do more research. This Hitler wanna-be is due back in court on September 4.

Hopefully he is sent to some small island to serve as a toilet cleaner, which is a bit of an intellectual stretch for this ardent supporter of Hitler's social and political agenda's.



New member ,
you need to do some research.

I'm sure that most Muslims just want to live their lives in peace.
The problem is that the politicians have allowed too many immigrants
to come and live here.
Many of them such as Sudanese have no education &
can't assimilate - many others have radical religious beliefs.

Now that it's all going pear shaped the politicians have made
laws which make it illegal to criticise their stupid decisions.
You are then labelled as racist or xenophobic & sent to jail.

The guy in question - Blair Cottrell  - will be the first of many.
It won't be long before Ozpolitic will be cracked down on & people like you will be off to jail too -
for voicing your opinion.

That's all Blair Cottrell  did -
he posted an anti-Islamic video on Facebook or some other site.
He also had something to do with those posters.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1500765370/15

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:32pm

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.


You really need to do more research. This Hitler wanna-be is due back in court on September 4.

Hopefully he is sent to some small island to serve as a toilet cleaner, which is a bit of an intellectual stretch for this ardent supporter of Hitler's social and political agenda's.


I already spent 5 minutes on it. Can you give us a link to more info?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:34pm
Well Bob,

I assume these protests would similarly approved of by your good self if they were in protest of a new Christian church? Maybe if a small dummy was repeatedly mock-raped with a small white dildo to represent the endemic child abuse within the church?

In anticipation of your approval of the above, I will applaud your even-handed and impartial view on all things political and religious. Well-balanced individuals such as yourself are a, no pun intended, god-send! 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:35pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.


You really need to do more research. This Hitler wanna-be is due back in court on September 4.

Hopefully he is sent to some small island to serve as a toilet cleaner, which is a bit of an intellectual stretch for this ardent supporter of Hitler's social and political agenda's.


I already spent 5 minutes on it. Can you give us a link to more info?



He's been in jail before.

He was an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyr_4x_n3Rg

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:36pm

Quote:
I already spent 5 minutes on it. Can you give us a link to more info?


Not as a new member I cannot... site rules.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:36pm

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:34pm:
Well Bob,

I assume these protests would similarly approved of by your good self if they were in protest of a new Christian church? Maybe if a small dummy was repeatedly mock-raped with a small white dildo to represent the endemic child abuse within the church?

In anticipation of your approval of the above, I will applaud your even-handed and impartial view on all things political and religious. Well-balanced individuals such as yourself are a, no pun intended, god-send! 



When people get too religious I remind them of the Inquisition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g76LwvbBEI

Title: Re: Blair Cottrell
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:03pm
He has a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/BlairCottrell89/



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:31pm
Does anyone have a problem with what he was charged with?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrell
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:40pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:31pm:
Does anyone have a problem with what he was charged with?


I do - as I said:

Now that it's all going pear shaped the politicians have made
laws which make it illegal to criticise their stupid decisions.
You are then labelled as racist or xenophobic & sent to jail

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Alinta on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 10:20pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.



I meant that he is criticising the large numbers of Muslims
being allowed to come here & set up Mosques
which is a decision made by the Govt.
The Govt. allowed it - they encouraged it.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:28pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 10:20pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.



the large numbers of Muslims
.


Can you define "large" and please, clearly, define "Muslim".

Thank you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Setanta on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:37pm
Large: of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity.
Muslim: an adherent of Islam.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 24th, 2017 at 12:07am

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 10:20pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.



the large numbers of Muslims
.


Can you define "large" and please, clearly, define "Muslim".

Thank you.



Well - it's not a few dozen - we're talking about 10s of 1000s.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 24th, 2017 at 12:27am

Mjölnir wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:37pm:
Large: of considerable or relatively great size, .


So a few thousand is a year is "relatively great" when compared to general immigration numbers?

Gilding the lily is one thing, embedding the poor flower in metres of solid gold is another...

Fact's people!

Try facts rather your bombastic and fundamentally flawed statements.

The ease by which you can be proved to be distorters, liars and mis-representer's (sic) is embarrassing to which ever flavour of fantasy based politics you claim to belong to...

Sit down and consider actually living in the moment and appreciating the reality of today rather than the diminutive dream world you wish to inhabit...

#sad #lowenergy #covfefe

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 24th, 2017 at 12:23pm
Would you also like us to define 'number', or can you figure that one out for yourself?


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


So Victoria has made it illegal to mock religious people?

Was this something to do with 9/11?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 24th, 2017 at 2:12pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 12:23pm:
Would you also like us to define 'number', or can you figure that one out for yourself?


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


So Victoria has made it illegal to mock religious people?

Was this something to do with 9/11?



I suppose it would be the same as
Muslims holding a mock crucifixion outside a proposed church.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:24pm
Christians hold mock crucifixions all the some. Some a little less mock than you would expect. Christianity has been the butt of jokes, and an increasingly hostile political atheism, for decades.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:30pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:24pm:
Christians hold mock crucifixions all the some. Some a little less mock than you would expect. Christianity has been the butt of jokes, and an increasingly hostile political atheism, for decades.


Yes FD,
Religious numbers are declining -
maybe it's all those pedophiles in churches?


Quote:
A 2013 Roy Morgan poll indicated that non-religious Australians comprised approximately 37% of the population.



http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/08/09/4515206.htm


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:32pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:24pm:
Christians hold mock crucifixions all the some. Some a little less mock than you would expect. Christianity has been the butt of jokes, and an increasingly hostile political atheism, for decades.


not quite what bobby suggested though is it FD!

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:34pm
John what do you think of the charges Blair is facing?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:38pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:34pm:
John what do you think of the charges Blair is facing?


Sucked in to him.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:40pm
Do you think the law being used is a good idea?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:44pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:40pm:
Do you think the law being used is a good idea?


In this case, yes. Would you be whinging if a muslim was making an anti Christianity video and police charged them with the same crime?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?

In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views. I don't change my mind about whether a law is good or bad depending on who is getting charged at the moment.

Do you?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?


that's a trick question, right?


freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Do you?


nope. I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:46pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
nope. I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.



Smithy - you hate everyone -

does that mean you should go to jail?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:08pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time.


Can you provide factual documented evidence that supports this statement?

Perhaps you can explain what "all the time" means n your terms of reference, because I suspect even extremist muslims need to sleep...  :o

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:29pm

Moriaty wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time.


Can you provide factual documented evidence that supports this statement?

Perhaps you can explain what "all the time" means n your terms of reference, because I suspect even extremist muslims need to sleep...  :o



They are on social media - horrible stuff -
beheadings etc.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 24th, 2017 at 11:35pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
nope. I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.



Smithy - you hate everyone -

does that mean you should go to jail?


au contraire. I don't hate anyone Booby. When have you ever seen me start a hate thread?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 9:29am

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:31am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 11:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 11:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
nope. I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.



Smithy - you hate everyone -

does that mean you should go to jail?


au contraire. I don't hate anyone Bobby. When have you ever seen me start a hate thread?



Hey everyone - John loves you now.


you're an idiot bobby.



Smithy,
Get an anger management course - you need it badly.


you're an idiot bobby.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:19pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?


Rubbish. Reference just one. If they're really doing it all the time, you shouldn't have any trouble citing one.


Quote:
In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views.


Well by "recent" you mean about 4 years ago, but anyway...

Australian law is very clear on incitement to violence. When you get a bunch of rampaging thugs being violent - then yes, the slogan "behead those who insult the prophet" in that context could (and should) be interpreted as incitement. This is obviously very different to a peaceful protest in which protesters are calmly calling for the death penalty for blasphemy - regardless of how distasteful we find it. Context is everything.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:40pm:
Do you think the law being used is a good idea?


In this case, yes. Would you be whinging if a muslim was making an anti Christianity video and police charged them with the same crime?



John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?


that's a trick question, right?


freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Do you?


nope. I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.


So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:06pm

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?

In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views. I don't change my mind about whether a law is good or bad depending on who is getting charged at the moment.

Do you?


Would you like to try giving a straight answer this time John? He is not charged with promoting hatred.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:07pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?

In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views. I don't change my mind about whether a law is good or bad depending on who is getting charged at the moment.

Do you?


Would you like to try giving a straight answer this time John? He is not charged with promoting hatred.


I didn't say he was FD. :D :D :D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:08pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?

In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views. I don't change my mind about whether a law is good or bad depending on who is getting charged at the moment.

Do you?


Would you like to try giving a straight answer this time John? He is not charged with promoting hatred.


I didn't say he was FD. :D :D :D


Would you like to have another go at giving a straight answer John?

You just said anyone promoting hatred should go to jail. Now you are back pedaling already. Would you like to make your mind up before I spend several pages seeing how far backwards you will pedal?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:10pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Muslims make anti Christian videos all the time. Have you ever seen me complain?

In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views. I don't change my mind about whether a law is good or bad depending on who is getting charged at the moment.

Do you?


Would you like to try giving a straight answer this time John? He is not charged with promoting hatred.


I didn't say he was FD. :D :D :D


Would you like to have another go at giving a straight answer John?

You just said anyone promoting hatred should go to jail. Now you are back pedaling already. Would you like to make your mind up before I spend several pages seeing how far backwards you will pedal?


are you perchance  on drugs FD? Are you just going to repeat the same question over and over again and hope for a different answer?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:14pm

Quote:
are you perchance  on drugs FD? Are you just going to repeat the same question over and over again and hope for a different answer?


I will try to dumb it down for you until you realise your hypocrisy.

Here it is again for you John. Note the absence of any references to hatred:


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


Do you support this law? Regardless of who it is being charged?

Do you still think anyone promoting hatred should go to jail?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:16pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:14pm:
Here it is again for you John. Note the absence of any references to hatred:


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


Do you support this law? Regardless of who it is being charged?

Do you still think anyone promoting hatred should go to jail?


i  already answered that FD. I told you I didn't have a problem with the law (2 or 3 times). I'm not sure why you think asking 500 times is going to help you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:18pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:14pm:
Note the absence of any references to hatred:


but that wasn't what you asked me, now was it :D :D :D


freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:19pm
John this would be a whole lot easier if you didn't have a habit of saying incredibly stupid things and following it up with endless tapdancing to try to maintain two positions at once.


John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:14pm:
Here it is again for you John. Note the absence of any references to hatred:


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


Do you support this law? Regardless of who it is being charged?

Do you still think anyone promoting hatred should go to jail?


i  already answered that FD. I told you I didn't have a problem with the law (2 or 3 times). I'm not sure why you think asking 500 times is going to help you.


You have given a straight answer only once John, followed by you directly contradicting that answer. You said you support the law regardless of who is being charged, then specified which people you would support the law being applied to. I am not sure how to dumb this down any further for you. How about you think first before answering?

Do you support the law regardless of who is being charged?

You also said you think anyone promoting hatred should go to jail, yet the first example I put to you, you changed your mind. Hence, I am repeating that question also. Do you think anyone promoting hatred should be jailed?

Obviously I expect a different answer eventually, because eventually you will realise how stupid your original statement was.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:41pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:19pm:
then specified which people you would support the law being applied to.


where did I do that? ::)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:42pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:19pm:
You also said you think anyone promoting hatred should go to jail, yet the first example I put to you, you changed your mind.


you can't read can you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:58pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
nope.

I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail.

I don't care what religion they are.



John has Alzheimer's.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:02pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
nope.

I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail.

I don't care what religion they are.



John has Alzheimer's.


did you quote that because you thought it sounded good bobby? I didn't deny saying that, I denied contradicting myself.

Can you perhaps help FD, and show where I changed my mind after his first example?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Mr Hammer on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:17pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.
John's grandfather was a nazi Bobby.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:19pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.
John's grandfather was a nazi Bobby.


John likes to call other people idiots.  ;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Mr Hammer on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:24pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.
John's grandfather was a nazi Bobby.


John likes to call other people idiots.  ;D
He's got fascist dna running through his veins. That's why he's a leftist.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:38pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.
John's grandfather was a nazi Bobby.


John likes to call other people idiots.  ;D

not everyone bobby But you certainly qualify ;D ;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:39pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.
John's grandfather was a nazi Bobby.


John likes to call other people idiots.  ;D
He's got fascist dna running through his veins. That's why he's a leftist.


and you have stupidity running through yours

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:41pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:24pm:
He's got fascist dna running through his veins. That's why he's a leftist.


:D :D :D :D



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:47pm
OK John - we've had enough now -
you've turned a thread about Blair Cottrell into a thread about your idiocy.

That's enough - back to the topic.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:48pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 7:47pm:
OK John - we've had enough now -
you've turned a thread about Blair Cottrell into a thread about your idiocy.

That's enough - back to the topic.


weren't you going to help FD? He's really struggling here, he needs all the help he can get, even if it is from you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm
OK John, let's try giving some straight answers for once. Just for you, I will dumb it down even more.

Do you think anyone who promotes hatred should be jailed?

Should people be jailed for promoting hatred of Nazis?

Do you support this law regardless of who is being charged under it? Or only people you see as "promoting hatred"? Why is the promotion of hatred even relevant to whether you support the law?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

Quote:
In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views.


Well by "recent" you mean about 4 years ago, but anyway...

Australian law is very clear on incitement to violence. When you get a bunch of rampaging thugs being violent - then yes, the slogan "behead those who insult the prophet" in that context could (and should) be interpreted as incitement. This is obviously very different to a peaceful protest in which protesters are calmly calling for the death penalty for blasphemy - regardless of how distasteful we find it. Context is everything.


It seems like only yesterday Gandalf. Seeing as you went to the trouble of tracking down the discussion, would you mind posting a link for John so he can stop projecting his hypocrisy onto me?

Also, are you saying that whether a person commits a crime by putting their favourite Islamic hadith on a placard depends on the actions of other people after they turn up? Where does the law clearly state this?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:18pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Do you think anyone who promotes hatred should be jailed?



John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail. I don't care what religion they are.



freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Should people be jailed for promoting hatred of Nazis?



John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
yep


freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Do you support this law regardless of who is being charged under it?




freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Do you support this law regardless of who is being charged under it?



John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 8:44pm:
In this case, yes.

and

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:16pm:
I told you I didn't have a problem with the law (2 or 3 times).




freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Or only people you see as "promoting hatred"?


John Smith wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 9:32pm:
I think anyone promoting hatred deserves to go to jail.



freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Why is the promotion of hatred even relevant to whether you support the law?

cause that's what they're in effect doing with their actions



as you can see FD, every question, with the exception of the last one which is a new one, was answered, in most cases multiple times.

Now can you show me where this contradiction is? I'm still waiting and bobby is about to explode in anticipation of you showing me how i contradicted myself.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:21pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14pm:
Seeing as you went to the trouble of tracking down the discussion, would you mind posting a link for John so he can stop projecting his hypocrisy onto me?




you need to stop using what other people say and pretending it's my argument. You'd be much better served if you concentrated on what I SAY. you seem to struggle enough with that as it is.Trying to remember what gandalf said 4 yrs ago. No wonder you're confused :D :D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


Quote:
as you can see FD, every question, with the exception of the last one which is a new one, was answered, in most cases multiple times.


You answered it once, and you quoted two different questions. Thanks for giving a straight answer. It only took three pages. I think that's a record for you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:26pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


it's not your night is it? you're struggling so much with what I said tonight, take my advice and don't even go with what I didn't say ;D ;D ;D




still waiting for you to show me where I contradicted myself?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:27pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


that was what you were asking about at the time.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


that was what you were asking about at the time.


So whether you support this law depends on the particular case being prosecuted under it?

BTW, you avoided the question again. Do try to give a straight answer John. Here it is again: In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


it's not your night is it? you're struggling so much with what I said tonight, take my advice and don't even go with what I didn't say ;D ;D ;D




still waiting for you to show me where I contradicted myself?


Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?


Quote:
still waiting for you to show me where I contradicted myself?


My bad. You are still stuck on the incredibly stupid phase. Sooner or later you will contradict yourself by thinking before responding.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:30pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


that was what you were asking about at the time.


So whether you support this law depends on the particular case being prosecuted under it?


ohh for fkks sake. WHy don't you read all of what I said, not pick out two words and running with it. It's getting tiring having to repeat myself 100 times.




John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:18pm:
and
John Smith wrote Today at 7:16pm:
I told you I didn't have a problem with the law (2 or 3 times).


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:33pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


that was what you were asking about at the time.


So whether you support this law depends on the particular case being prosecuted under it?

BTW, you avoided the question again. Do try to give a straight answer John. I ask again, because every time I assume you are making sense you prove me wrong. In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


it's not your night is it? you're struggling so much with what I said tonight, take my advice and don't even go with what I didn't say ;D ;D ;D


Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?


Quote:
still waiting for you to show me where I contradicted myself?


My bad. You are still stuck on the incredibly stupid phase. Sooner or later you will contradict yourself by thinking before responding.

ohh for fkks sake. WHy don't you read all of what I said, not pick out two words and running with it. It's getting tiring having to repeat myself 100 times.

So why did you qualify your answer with "in this case" John?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:34pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?


now we're moving onto making fun off ehh.

No, I don't think any subject is out of bounds as far as humour goes.

let me guess, this is where you're going to pretend cottrel was joking? :D :D


freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
My bad. You are still stuck on the incredibly stupid phase. Sooner or later you will contradict yourself by thinking before responding.


you shouldn't comment on stupidity with your track record tonight. If I'm stupid, just howdo you think you look that you have to misrepresent what I say to try and win? surely a genius like you would be able to win one without having to lie about what i said?? :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:37pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?


No, I don't think any subject is out of bounds as far as humour goes.


Here is that law again John: A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Are you sure you support this law absolutely?


John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?


Quote:
In this case, yes.


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


that was what you were asking about at the time.


So whether you support this law depends on the particular case being prosecuted under it?

BTW, you avoided the question again. Do try to give a straight answer John. I ask again, because every time I assume you are making sense you prove me wrong. In what case? Blair Cottrel's?


Quote:
ohh for fkks sake. WHy don't you read all of what I said, not pick out two words and running with it. It's getting tiring having to repeat myself 100 times.


So why did you qualify your answer with "in this case" John?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:39pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:37pm:
Are you sure you support this law absolutely?


yep .... pretty much. I'm pretty sure that courts look at intent in these matters. If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:42pm

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:37pm:
So why did you qualify your answer with "in this case" John?


you asked about a specific case. Thats what my answer at the time was about.

I later added that I supported this law, without qualifying it. But for some reason you pretended not to see that. TWICE.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:47pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?


No, I don't think any subject is out of bounds as far as humour goes.


Here is that law again John: A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Are you sure you support this law absolutely?


yep .... pretty much. I'm pretty sure that courts look at intent in these matters.


Duh. Here, I will highlight it for you:

A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

So, your position is that you think it should not be illegal to make fund of religious people, but you absolutely support this law, because the courts will take into consideration whether the perpetrator intended to incite severe ridicule of religious people?


Quote:
If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.


And you support this law regardless of who it is applied to, because you will change your mind if it is applied to people who you don't want it applied to?

All this because you support the law, not based on what it for forbids people from actually doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you see the self contradictions yet John?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:57pm

here we go again

why do you do this with every sentence? I support the law. No matter how often you ask, or whether you agree or not, I support the law. I gave you my opinion of the humour side of it, you can accept it or not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for another 5 pages just because you can't accept it.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 26th, 2017 at 6:48am

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
So it doesn't matter how you get them there, so long as they end up in jail?

If someone promoted hatred of Nazis, would you also want to see them in jail?


yep (ohh, and nazism isn't a religion)



John wants to see people who hate Nazis go to jail.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 26th, 2017 at 10:18am

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14pm:
Also, are you saying that whether a person commits a crime by putting their favourite Islamic hadith on a placard depends on the actions of other people after they turn up?


no.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:39pm
So what else are we supposed to make of this Gandalf?


freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

Quote:
In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views.


Well by "recent" you mean about 4 years ago, but anyway...

Australian law is very clear on incitement to violence. When you get a bunch of rampaging thugs being violent - then yes, the slogan "behead those who insult the prophet" in that context could (and should) be interpreted as incitement. This is obviously very different to a peaceful protest in which protesters are calmly calling for the death penalty for blasphemy - regardless of how distasteful we find it. Context is everything.


It seems like only yesterday Gandalf. Seeing as you went to the trouble of tracking down the discussion, would you mind posting a link for John so he can stop projecting his hypocrisy onto me?

Also, are you saying that whether a person commits a crime by putting their favourite Islamic hadith on a placard depends on the actions of other people after they turn up? Where does the law clearly state this?



Quote:
I gave you my opinion of the humour side of it, you can accept it or not.


My bad. I assumed you were giving a straight answer for once. But you were actually changing the topic. Here's that question for you again:

Should it be illegal to make fun of religious people?

Just in case you are still confused, here is another one:

Should it be illegal to ridicule religious people?


Quote:
If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.


So you support this law regardless of who it is applied to, because you will change your mind if it is applied to people who you don't want it applied to?

Or are you changing your answer to the question of whether you support the law regardless of who it is applied to?

All this because you support the law, not based on what it explicitly forbids people from doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:50pm

freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
My bad.


it usually is, isn't it


John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:57pm:
I gave you my opinion of the humour side of it, you can accept it or not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for another 5 pages just because you can't accept it.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:00pm
Smith wants Nazi haters to go to jail.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:02pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:00pm:
Smith wants Nazi haters to go to jail.


shut up stupid. You should learn to read before commenting.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Gordon on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:49pm
Arr we allowed to take the piss out of religion?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 26th, 2017 at 2:19pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:00pm:
Smith wants Nazi haters to go to jail.


shut up stupid. You should learn to read before commenting.



You wrote  Yep
in answer to the question.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 26th, 2017 at 2:22pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 2:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:00pm:
Smith wants Nazi haters to go to jail.


shut up stupid. You should learn to read before commenting.



You wrote  Yep
in answer to the question.

Don't shoot the messenger.


perhaps you should ask someone to read the question to you then. :D :D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 26th, 2017 at 2:33pm

freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
So what else are we supposed to make of this Gandalf?


Nothing in what I said takes away the responsibility of the person doing the incitement - as you implied.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:03pm
Gandalf in what way are you saying it is different in the different context? Did you really mean that the two contexts make no difference from a legal perspective?


freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
So what else are we supposed to make of this Gandalf?


freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

Quote:
In a recent discussion with Gandalf, Gandalf expressed his support for charging the Muslims holding up the beheading placards. I disagreed with him. Unlike you, I am consistent in my views.


Well by "recent" you mean about 4 years ago, but anyway...

Australian law is very clear on incitement to violence. When you get a bunch of rampaging thugs being violent - then yes, the slogan "behead those who insult the prophet" in that context could (and should) be interpreted as incitement. This is obviously very different to a peaceful protest in which protesters are calmly calling for the death penalty for blasphemy - regardless of how distasteful we find it. Context is everything.


It seems like only yesterday Gandalf. Seeing as you went to the trouble of tracking down the discussion, would you mind posting a link for John so he can stop projecting his hypocrisy onto me?

Also, are you saying that whether a person commits a crime by putting their favourite Islamic hadith on a placard depends on the actions of other people after they turn up? Where does the law clearly state this?



John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 8:57pm:
I gave you my opinion of the humour side of it, you can accept it or not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for another 5 pages just because you can't accept it.


John you gave two contradictory opinions. I am not asking you to contradict yourself again. I am asking you to explain. Instead you are running away, presumably because you (finally) realise you have painted yourself into a corner of idiocy.


freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
Should it be illegal to ridicule religious people?


Quote:
If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.


So you support this law regardless of who it is applied to, because you will change your mind if it is applied to people who you don't want it applied to?

Or are you changing your answer to the question of whether you support the law regardless of who it is applied to?

All this because you support the law, not based on what it explicitly forbids people from doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.



John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:00pm:
Smith wants Nazi haters to go to jail.


shut up stupid. You should learn to read before commenting.


Yet this is what you want isn't it John? Or should they only be jailed if they promote their views?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:15pm

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
John you gave two contradictory opinions



that's what you said before and yet it turned out you were wrong. I'm going to suggest you're wrong in this case too.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:19pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
John you gave two contradictory opinions



that's what you said before and yet it turned out you were wrong. I'm going to suggest you're wrong in this case too.


Because you gave one answer to two different question John. I admit to jumping the gun by assuming you had transitioned from the "posting incredibly stupid things" part of the debate to contradicting yourself by posting something sensible. I was wrong. But now you say you support a law that makes is illegal to incite ridicule of religious people, but you also think it should be legal to make fun of religious people. What should we assume about your inability to see the contradiction there?

Should it be illegal to ridicule religious people?


Quote:
If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.


So you support this law regardless of who it is applied to, because you will change your mind if it is applied to people who you don't want it applied to?

Or are you changing your answer to the question of whether you support the law regardless of who it is applied to?

All this because you support the law, not based on what it explicitly forbids people from doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:20pm

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
Gandalf in what way are you saying it is different in the different context?


Once again... do you really not see any difference in terms of incitement between someone peacefully and calmly calling for the law to be changed to make blasphemy a capital crime on the one hand, and someone being violent and aggressive and calling for blasphemers to be beheaded on the other?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:27pm
Yes Gandalf. Hence the original question, which you are now dodging.

Are you saying that whether a person commits a crime by putting their favourite Islamic hadith on a placard depends on the actions of other people after they turn up?

Are you now saying it depends on whether the person holding the placard is violent, rather than whether the protest as a whole or in part turns violent? So whether it is illegal to hold up a certain placard depends on whether you are assaulting someone while holding it?

If I assault someone while chewing gum, does that make it illegal to chew gum?

If the law is so clear on the matter, as you suggest, why are you now being so evasive?

Do you have an opinion on the charges that Blair Cottrel is facing?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:47pm
I'm saying whether or not something is incitement depends on the context: A violent context would more likely be incitement than a non-violent context. Thats all I'm saying. You really don't need to read anything more into that.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:57pm

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:19pm:
Because you gave one answer to two different question John


no, I gave one answer for the question immediately preceding it. As for the rest , Already sufficiently answered. I'm not going to humour you with your ask the same question 100 times tactic.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 27th, 2017 at 5:03pm

Quote:
I'm saying whether or not something is incitement depends on the context


Even if that "context" is something that occurs afterwards?


Quote:
As for the rest , Already sufficiently answered.


You have never answered this question John:

Should it be illegal to ridicule religious people?

Also, you have never explained how you can support a law regardless of who it is applied to at the same time as offering to change your mind if it gets applied to comedians.

Do you think it is a good idea to support a law, not based on what it explicitly forbids people from doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 27th, 2017 at 7:54pm

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 5:03pm:
Even if that "context" is something that occurs afterwards?


no. You're reading into something that isn't there. Don't unnecessarily hurt your brain FD. What I say is exceedingly simple.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Jul 28th, 2017 at 5:57pm
Islam and its enablers and defenders (Bwian, gandalf, kameel, gweg, Gino, Arsie, Mothra et al) are enemies of free speech as it has been understood in the West since French and American revolutions (that is, since the founding of Australia).

Exhibit No 47,985:

Richard Dawkins is dragged into America’s tedious free-speech war
Douglas Murray    23 July 2017

Richard Dawkins is, by any standards, one of the most famous scientists on the planet. His books have brought writing about science to a world-wide audience. One recognition of this achievement is that just this week his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ was voted the most inspiring science book of all time in a public poll commissioned by the Royal Society.

However it is important that the gentle denizens of a city like Berkeley be prevented from hearing from such a person. There were to have an opportunity next month, when KPFA in Berkeley were due to host an evening centred around Professor Dawkins’s new book ‘Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist'. But people who had booked tickets for this event have just received the following email:

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,

We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.
Sincerely,

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM


If I were one of the recipients of such an email I would not just spit on my Brown Paper refund, I would (hoping that Professor Dawkins might forgive the allusion) turn my back on KPFA and Berkeley and shake the dust from my feet.

What is this nonsense? We didn’t know that a distinguished scientist who we are lucky enough to have been hosting has expressed his views on earlier occasions? We are sorry that one of the world’s most famous atheists turned out to have expressed views on religion? We are sorry that one of the world’s most famous atheists who we were about to host has ‘blasphemed’ Islam when we had assumed he was just a good old blasphemer of Christianity and every religion except Islam? I do sometimes wonder why the Ayatollah’s advance guard in places like Berkeley don’t just move to Qom and be done with it.

Anyhow – for his part Professor Dawkins is well rid of these people. Who would have wanted to have slipped through the modern censor’s net only to find yourself speaking to an audience of bed-wetting morons who have a problem sitting through any event where they have to listen rather than jabber? People who think they know the difference between ‘serious free speech’ (any speech they themselves might venture to utter) and ‘non-serious free speech’ or ‘abusive speech’ (speech uttered by the rest of the world – because they say so).

As I say, Professor Dawkins is well rid of his ignorant hosts. But does anyone else sense that the territory on which people are allowed to actually speak freely is narrowing these days?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/richard-dawkins-is-dragged-into-americas-tedious-free-speech-war/

This is a famous example of what is happening on these boards, in Australian and Western  media outlets, workplaces, schools, universities.

Selectively standing up for Islam has become a dishonourable thing, like standing up for Nazi Germany in 1938 and denouncing those who didn't believe the 'peace in our time' bromides then.



.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 28th, 2017 at 6:21pm
Gandalf what is your opinion on the charges that Blair Cottrel is facing?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 7:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 5:03pm:
Even if that "context" is something that occurs afterwards?


no. You're reading into something that isn't there. Don't unnecessarily hurt your brain FD. What I say is exceedingly simple.


Are they supposed to know before they turn up whether the protest will turn violent? Or are you only referring to protests that are officially advertised as violent ones?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 28th, 2017 at 9:09pm

freediver wrote on Jul 28th, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Are they supposed to know before they turn up whether the protest will turn violent? Or are you only referring to protests that are officially advertised as violent ones?


To explain what should have been the bleeding obvious - I was referring to the protester himself/herself acting violently while calling for the beheading - not other people around them.

Oh thats right, I already clearly spelled that out:

someone being violent and aggressive and calling for blasphemers to be beheaded

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 29th, 2017 at 8:02am

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2017 at 4:27pm:
Are you now saying it depends on whether the person holding the placard is violent, rather than whether the protest as a whole or in part turns violent? So whether it is illegal to hold up a certain placard depends on whether you are assaulting someone while holding it?

If I assault someone while chewing gum, does that make it illegal to chew gum?

Do you have an opinion on the charges that Blair Cottrel is facing?


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:11am
First I want you to try and understand the exceedingly simple concept about context - namely that a person advocating execution while being violent and intimidating is a vastly different context to someone peacefully advocating for blasphemy to be made a capital offense.

Only then can we move on to why one might be considered incitement to violence, and the other might not.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:17am
If they are being violent, they fact that they are also inciting violence is kind of a moot point don't you think?

What happened to the clear legal distinction you started out with? Has it disappeared?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:36am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:11am:
First I want you to try and understand the exceedingly simple concept about context - namely that a person advocating execution while being violent and intimidating is a vastly different context to someone peacefully advocating for blasphemy to be made a capital offense.

Only then can we move on to why one might be considered incitement to violence, and the other might not.

They are both agitating for killing people for what they think.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:40am
now now I never said there was a "clear legal distinction". I said the law is clear on incitement being a crime. How that is interpreted is a completely different matter, and obviously a huge grey area.


freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:17am:
If they are being violent, they fact that they are also inciting violence is kind of a moot point don't you think?


Obviously if they are literally assaulting someone(s) or damaging property, then they are breaking other laws and should be prosecuted for that. But that doesn't mean they can't also be prosecuted for incitement at the same time.

As for Blair Cottrel, from what I understand he did a mock beheading as some sort of warning to or about muslims. I can understand why the authorities saw this as something more than just some artistic expression. I think its reasonable to interpret as inherently intimidating and threatening. In which case it was probably correct to charge him for it.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:42am

Frank wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:36am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:11am:
First I want you to try and understand the exceedingly simple concept about context - namely that a person advocating execution while being violent and intimidating is a vastly different context to someone peacefully advocating for blasphemy to be made a capital offense.

Only then can we move on to why one might be considered incitement to violence, and the other might not.

They are both agitating for killing people for what they think.


Correct. Distasteful yes, but should that be a crime?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 29th, 2017 at 10:17am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:40am:
now now I never said there was a "clear legal distinction". I said the law is clear on incitement being a crime. How that is interpreted is a completely different matter, and obviously a huge grey area.


freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:17am:
If they are being violent, they fact that they are also inciting violence is kind of a moot point don't you think?


Obviously if they are literally assaulting someone(s) or damaging property, then they are breaking other laws and should be prosecuted for that. But that doesn't mean they can't also be prosecuted for incitement at the same time.

As for Blair Cottrel, from what I understand he did a mock beheading as some sort of warning to or about muslims. I can understand why the authorities saw this as something more than just some artistic expression. I think its reasonable to interpret as inherently intimidating and threatening. In which case it was probably correct to charge him for it.


Who do you think was being threatened by the video?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Jul 29th, 2017 at 10:22am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:42am:

Frank wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:36am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:11am:
First I want you to try and understand the exceedingly simple concept about context - namely that a person advocating execution while being violent and intimidating is a vastly different context to someone peacefully advocating for blasphemy to be made a capital offense.

Only then can we move on to why one might be considered incitement to violence, and the other might not.

They are both agitating for killing people for what they think.


Correct. Distasteful yes, but should that be a crime?

No, but nor should the criticism of the ideological basis of their beliefs, in these cases Islam. They should not be allowed to bring legal cases against people who criticise their Islamic beliefs. But they are allowed and that is completely wrong. Laughing at koranic passages in a church resulted in conviction in victoria.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 29th, 2017 at 7:40pm

freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 10:17am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:40am:
now now I never said there was a "clear legal distinction". I said the law is clear on incitement being a crime. How that is interpreted is a completely different matter, and obviously a huge grey area.


freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 9:17am:
If they are being violent, they fact that they are also inciting violence is kind of a moot point don't you think?


Obviously if they are literally assaulting someone(s) or damaging property, then they are breaking other laws and should be prosecuted for that. But that doesn't mean they can't also be prosecuted for incitement at the same time.

As for Blair Cottrel, from what I understand he did a mock beheading as some sort of warning to or about muslims. I can understand why the authorities saw this as something more than just some artistic expression. I think its reasonable to interpret as inherently intimidating and threatening. In which case it was probably correct to charge him for it.


Who do you think was being threatened by the video?


muslims, obviously.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 30th, 2017 at 7:11am
I'm pretty sure the intention was to highlight the tendency of Muslims to behead people, not to threaten Muslims with beheading.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:34am

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 7:11am:
I'm pretty sure the intention was to highlight the tendency of Muslims to behead people, not to threaten Muslims with beheading.


The video doesn't have to threaten muslims with beheading to still be threatening to muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:47am
How is it threatening to them?

He was not charged with threatening by the way. He was charged with acting with an intention to incite ridicule.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:50am

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:47am:
How is it threatening to them?


Put it in your wiki FD, and falsely attribute it to muslims en masse, and have a jolly laugh about it.

....or you could work it out for yourself.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:54am
Was he threatening to act with the intention of inciting ridicule of Muslims?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:55pm
Here is the video:

https://youtu.be/t7rq5y_138w


What do you think of the outcome of the court case Gandalf? Should it be illegal to make videos mocking Muslim terrorists?

Far-right nationalists found guilty of inciting serious contempt for Muslims after mock beheading video

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-05/three-men-found-guilty-of-inciting-serious-contempt-for-muslims/8874804

Three far-right nationalists who staged a mock beheading to protest against the building of a mosque in Bendigo in central Victoria have been found guilty of inciting serious contempt of Muslims.

Blair Cottrell, Christopher Shortis and Neil Erikson have each been fined $2,000 after they filmed the beheading of a mannequin with a toy sword outside the Bendigo council offices in 2015.

The so-called 'Bendigo Three' argued that their video, which was released on the United Patriot's Front Facebook page, was an act of free speech that focused on a specific tenet of Islam.

But the magistrate disagreed, arguing the video was clearly intended to create serious contempt for or ridicule of Muslims.

"We live in a community which is inclusive and that each individual deserves the right to live their life peacefully," Magistrate Peter Hardy said.

"You more than just crossed a line."

It is the first time a criminal charge under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act has been tested in court.

Other charges relating to damaging public property were struck out.

The three men have since told the media that they intend to appeal the decision, saying they "expected" the outcome.

On the first day of the hearing, anti-racism protesters clashed with far-right nationalists outside court, forcing police to intervene.

Before the verdict, Cottrell told the court the matter "set a dangerous precedent for the state", saying the video was a form of free speech.

"It was aimed at a tenet of a religion, not a whole class of people," Cottrell said.

He added that the group could not control who watched the video and therefore target audience was "subjective".

"Conclusion drawn from watching the video is out of my control," Cottrell said.

But the prosecution said the video was clearly intended to create "serious contempt" towards Muslims, given the video's target audience and the fact it coincided with a campaign to stop the building of a mosque.

"They're picking up the acts of criminals … and purporting that to arouse hatred of Muslims in general," prosecutor Fran Dalziel told court.

She added the law did not require the prosecution to establish whether people's views changed as a result of the video, but rather to establish the intention.

"They were playing to the camera," Ms Dalziel said.

Professor Spencer Zifcak, the former president of Liberty Victoria, said he did not expect the decision would set any significant precedent.

"It's been well recognised for a long time that in international law and in domestic law in Australia, in relation to racial vilification, that hate speech of whatever kind ought not to be justified or covered just by saying its an example free speech," he said.

But he said the case showed that free speech also included "symbolic speech".

"They [the accused] weren't actually talking, this was a mock production … it was a symbol of somebody's head being cut off, but that's just as much speech as oral or written speech," he said.

"That's something that now can be established after this particular case."

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by sir prince duke alevine on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:57pm
Another reason why we need freedom of speech inscribed in our constitution or via bill of rights. It is outrageous to suggest a person can be fined because someone got upset over an obvious fictional video.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:59pm
I don't see the difference between this video and The Life of Brian. Since when is it illegal to make fun of people in Australia?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 5th, 2017 at 10:16pm

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:59pm:
I don't see the difference between this video and The Life of Brian. Since when is it illegal to make fun of people in Australia?

Since you have to think of Muslims. They are not ordinary 'people'.

How very dare you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:55pm:
Should it be illegal to make videos mocking Muslim terrorists?


Interesting that you assert this is what the video was about - given that it was specifically done as a protest to the construction of a mosque. Where do you get the link between mocking terrorists and opposing a new mosque? Its only possible to make such a link if you are somehow suggesting the new mosque will be connected with terrorism. The video was implying that with a new mosque comes more terrorism. It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism. That, I believe is what the court meant when they said it was holding muslim in contempt. And when this contempt comes in the form of such a violent and graphic demonstration, I think this is very sinister indeed.

Clearly the verdict was made with the context of the mosque protest in mind. Had it been as you claimed, nothing but mocking muslim terrorists (as opposed to blatantly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism), nothing would have happened.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:35pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Ahhh yes, the old got nuffin to do wiv Islam.   ;D ;D

And has nuffin to do wiv associating Muslims with terrorists.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:38pm
Was that honestly the most in depth you could manage?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
Was that honestly the most in depth you could manage?


I ain't the dopey apologist claiming that alakbahing terrorists have got nuffin to do wiv Islam.  ;D


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:44pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Ahhh yes, the old got nuffin to do wiv Islam.   ;D ;D



Ahhh yes, all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslims   ;D  ;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:44pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
Was that honestly the most in depth you could manage?


I ain't the dopey apologist claiming that alakbahing terrorists have got nuffin to do wiv Islam. 


Don't sell yourself short.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:48pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Ahhh yes, the old got nuffin to do wiv Islam.   ;D ;D



Ahhh yes, all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslims   ;D  ;D


Those are your words stupid.  Not mine. Strawman fail.

My not so remarkable point, that baffles Mothra and eludes you is that the ones associating Islam with terrorism are Islamic terrorists. 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:50pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Ahhh yes, the old got nuffin to do wiv Islam.   ;D ;D



Ahhh yes, all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslims   ;D  ;D


Those are your words stupid.  Not mine. Strawman fail.

My not so remarkable point, that baffles Mothra and eludes you is that the ones associating Islam with terrorism are Islamic terrorists. 


As I said, don't sell yourself short.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:51pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Ahhh yes, the old got nuffin to do wiv Islam.   

And has nuffin to do wiv associating Muslims with terrorists.


Those are your words stupid.  Not mine. Strawman fail.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:12pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
Was that honestly the most in depth you could manage?


I ain't the dopey apologist claiming that alakbahing terrorists have got nuffin to do wiv Islam.  ;D


One day you may realise that scorn is a poor substitute for intelligence.

May.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:16pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:12pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:38pm:
Was that honestly the most in depth you could manage?


I ain't the dopey apologist claiming that alakbahing terrorists have got nuffin to do wiv Islam.  ;D


One day you may realise that scorn is a poor substitute for intelligence.

May.


Hehehe, I repeat my previous.  Says it all.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:19pm
Okay, so you're a Nazi.

Just applying your logic.

Nazi.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:29pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:
...don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Mothra logic, Islamic terrorists ain't Muslim.

;D ;D ;D

It's rare to see stupidity so succinctly distilled, take a bow.   8-)





Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:34pm
Editing my posts now?

Typical. Well, you work with what you can, hey.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Justsayno on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:35pm

Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:
2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


That would infer that all the muslims involved riots Sept 2012 in Sydney should of been charged, but the vast majority evaded it.

We are surely on a slippery slope.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:34pm:
Editing my posts now, Nazi?

Typical. Well, you work with what you can, hey.


Floor is wide open for you to explain the reasoning behind claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:29pm:
It's rare to see stupidity so succinctly distilled


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=usersrecentposts;username=Secret_Wars

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:42pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:34pm:
Editing my posts now, Nazi?

Typical. Well, you work with what you can, hey.


Floor is wide open for you to explain the reasoning behind claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim.


I didn't. Are you febrile?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:43pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:34pm:
Editing my posts now, Nazi?

Typical. Well, you work with what you can, hey.


Floor is wide open for you to explain the reasoning behind claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim.


Link?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:44pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:29pm:
It's rare to see stupidity so succinctly distilled


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=usersrecentposts;username=Secret_Wars


Here comes the cavalry... ::)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm:
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Yes. People who aren't Muslim do those things too. Nazis, for example.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:41pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:34pm:
Editing my posts now, Nazi?

Typical. Well, you work with what you can, hey.


Floor is wide open for you to explain the reasoning behind claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim.


Link?


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:52pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm:
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Yes. People who aren't Muslim do those things too. Nazis, for example.


Heheheh, alakbahing terrorists driving into crowds or or blowing up people ain't Muslims.  That's your boneheaded contention.

Now up to you to demonstrate the reasoning that leads you to that idiot conclusion.  Well reasoning other than rank, unthinking, submissive apologism, you already done that.

The floor is still yours. 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:53pm

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:55pm:
Should it be illegal to make videos mocking Muslim terrorists?


Interesting that you assert this is what the video was about - given that it was specifically done as a protest to the construction of a mosque. Where do you get the link between mocking terrorists and opposing a new mosque? Its only possible to make such a link if you are somehow suggesting the new mosque will be connected with terrorism. The video was implying that with a new mosque comes more terrorism. It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism. That, I believe is what the court meant when they said it was holding muslim in contempt. And when this contempt comes in the form of such a violent and graphic demonstration, I think this is very sinister indeed.

Clearly the verdict was made with the context of the mosque protest in mind. Had it been as you claimed, nothing but mocking muslim terrorists (as opposed to blatantly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism), nothing would have happened.


Have you seen the video Gandalf? Do you agree that it is mocking terrorists?

What else should we refrain from saying whenever there is public discussion about building a mosque?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm:
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Yes. People who aren't Muslim do those things too. Nazis, for example.


Heheheh, alakbahing terrorists driving into crowds or or blowing up people ain't Muslims.  That's your boneheaded contention.


Link?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:56pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:53pm:


I've searched through this entire thread, and I can't find any post from you "claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim".

So, why does he keep repeating that nonsense?

What the hell is wrong with him?


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:56pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm:
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Yes. People who aren't Muslim do those things too. Nazis, for example.


Heheheh, alakbahing terrorists driving into crowds or or blowing up people ain't Muslims.  That's your boneheaded contention.


Link?



As self-evident as it was, i still tried to explain it to him.

Utterly futile.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:57pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:53pm:


I've searched through this entire thread, and I can't find any post from you "claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim".

So, why does he keep repeating that nonsense?

What the hell is wrong with him?



He's very bad tempered and not very bright.

It's a lethal combination.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:59pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:46pm:
Are you?


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Yes. People who aren't Muslim do those things too. Nazis, for example.


Heheheh, alakbahing terrorists driving into crowds or or blowing up people ain't Muslims.  That's your boneheaded contention.


Link?



As self-evident as it was, i still tried to explain it to him.

Utterly futile.


"Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim."

It's  perfectly obvious from that statement that you are not "claiming that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim".

You are claiming that only a small minority of Muslims do those things and, that non-Muslims do those things too.

Moreover, you are 100% correct.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:02pm
I honestly don't know how i could have made myself clearer without inserting a disclaimer as a footnote.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm


mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


"Those things", holding up signs that declare that those who insult the prophet are to be beheaded and diving into crowds or blowing people are associated with Islam, precisely because it is Muslims holding up the signs, driving into the crowds and blowing people up. 

Not the only ones... though that is problematic for the signs, but you opted in this thread, to my post to claim "that  those things are done by people who aren't Muslim" is wrong, they are uncontestably done by Muslims.

Muslims are associated with terrorism because Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:18pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:02pm:
I honestly don't know how i could have made myself clearer without inserting a disclaimer as a footnote.


Let's break it down.

"They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things ... "


This quite clearly indicates that you believe that at least some Muslims do do those things. Otherwise, you would have said "no Muslim does these things".

" ... and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim".

Yes, of course they are.

The majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-Muslims. We all know that.

However, nowhere have you said that all terrorism is carried out by non-Muslims.

SW can be strange, at times.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:20pm
Yes. It really was very straight forward.

I think Secret understands now. At least, he's gone very quiet.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:24pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


"Those things", holding up signs that declare that those who insult the prophet are to be beheaded and diving into crowds or blowing people are associated with Islam, precisely because it is Muslims holding up the signs, driving into the crowds and blowing people up. 

Not the only ones... though that is problematic for the signs, but you opted in this thread, to my post to claim "that  those things are done by people who aren't Muslim" is wrong, they are uncontestably done by Muslims.

Muslims are associated with terrorism because Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


So, happy to admit you're a Nazi then?

I mean, you're right wing and white, yeah?

If you're going to associate all people with the actions of a few who share a common characteristic, you're a Nazi.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:26pm
And a terrorist. A Nazi terrorist.

I'm just following your logic, Secret.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:28pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:26pm:
And a terrorist. A Nazi terrorist.

I'm just following your logic, Secret.


Logic?

Wow! You're in a generous mood.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim",  it is undeniable, despite Mothras attempted apologism  that Muslims are holding the signs, driving the cars into crowds and blowing people up. 

Pedantics innit. 


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:31pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who aren't Muslim",  it is undeniable, despite Mothras attempted apologism  that Muslims are holding the signs, driving the cars into crowds and blowing people up. 

Pedantics innit. 


Nope. I was wrong. He still doesn't get it.

Astonishing.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:33pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim", 


Why must you lie?

She never said that.

She said "those things are done by people who aren't Muslim".

And, she's 100% correct.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:31pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who aren't Muslim",  it is undeniable, despite Mothras attempted apologism  that Muslims are holding the signs, driving the cars into crowds and blowing people up. 

Pedantics innit. 


Nope. I was wrong. He still doesn't get it.

Astonishing.


Oh I get it, it is unfortunate for you that I am only addressing what you said, and unfortunately for you, and for us, those things are done by Muslims.

The reason. Islam is associated with terrorism is because of Islamic terrorists.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:31pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who aren't Muslim",  it is undeniable, despite Mothras attempted apologism  that Muslims are holding the signs, driving the cars into crowds and blowing people up. 

Pedantics innit. 


Nope. I was wrong. He still doesn't get it.

Astonishing.


I'm just sitting here shaking my head.

It's like watching a Mr Hammer clone, who's had a lobotomy.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:31pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:21pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:
All Muslims are incorrectly associated with terrorism because some Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.


Fixed.

And, some non-Muslims are associated with terrorism, because the majority of terrorist attacks carried out throughout history, all over the world, have been carried out by some non-Muslims.


Don't "fix" my quotes.

If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who aren't Muslim",  it is undeniable, despite Mothras attempted apologism  that Muslims are holding the signs, driving the cars into crowds and blowing people up. 

Pedantics innit. 


Nope. I was wrong. He still doesn't get it.

Astonishing.


I'm just sitting here shaking my head.

It's like watching a Mr Hammer clone, who's had a lobotomy.


Never was this more true:

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/is-racism-just-a-form-of-stupidity.html

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:42pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Oh I get it, it is unfortunate for you that I am only addressing what you said, and unfortunately for you, and for us, those things are done by Muslims.

Nobody has denied that.

And, additionally, "those things are done by people who aren't Muslim", just as mothra said.


Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
The reason. Islam is associated with terrorism is because of Islamic terrorists.

The reason non-Muslims are associated with terrorism is because of non-Muslim terrorists.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:43pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


"Those things", holding up signs that declare that those who insult the prophet are to be beheaded and diving into crowds or blowing people are associated with Islam, precisely because it is Muslims holding up the signs, driving into the crowds and blowing people up. 

Not the only ones... though that is problematic for the signs, but you opted in this thread, to my post to claim "that  those things are done by people who aren't Muslim" is wrong, they are uncontestably done by Muslims.

Muslims are associated with terrorism because Muslims are holding up the signs, blowing the people up and driving into crowds.



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm
Honestly remarkable.   :o

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW:
Quote:
If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".


Do you remember saying that?



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW: If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "[i]those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".
[/i]
Do you remember saying that?



Nope. Funnily enough. You'd have to be pretty thick to interpret what i said in that way.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:48pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW: If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "[i]those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".
[/i]
Do you remember saying that?



Nope. Funnily enough. You'd have to be pretty thick to interpret what i said in that way.


It's not an interpretation, though.

He put it in quotation marks.

He's claiming that you actually said these words: "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

Did he not think he'd be picked up on such a blatant lie?




Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Oh I get it, it is unfortunate for you that I am only addressing what you said, and unfortunately for you, and for us, those things are done by Muslims.

Nobody has denied that.

And, additionally, "those things are done by people who aren't Muslim", just as mothra said.


Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
The reason. Islam is associated with terrorism is because of Islamic terrorists.

The reason non-Muslims are associated with terrorism is because of non-Muslim terrorists.


Mothra was wrong.  Those things are done by people who are Muslims. 

I get what you and Mothra are trying to do, but no where have I claimed that it is only Muslims that are terrorists, nor have I said, what you tried earlier, that all Muslims are terrorists, but it is undeniable, contrary to Mothras contention that "these things are done by people who aren't Muslim" that these things are done by muslims. 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW: If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "[i]those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".
[/i]
Do you remember saying that?



Nope. Funnily enough. You'd have to be pretty thick to interpret what i said in that way.


It's not an interpretation, though.

He put it in quotation marks.

He's claiming that you actually said these words: "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

Did he not think he'd be picked up on such a blatant lie?


An excellent point ... yet i think you are crediting him with more intelligence than he actually has.

He's just not clever enough to wilfully misrepresent.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:53pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Oh I get it, it is unfortunate for you that I am only addressing what you said, and unfortunately for you, and for us, those things are done by Muslims.

Nobody has denied that.

And, additionally, "those things are done by people who aren't Muslim", just as mothra said.


Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
The reason. Islam is associated with terrorism is because of Islamic terrorists.

The reason non-Muslims are associated with terrorism is because of non-Muslim terrorists.


Mothra was wrong.  


Nope.

She was 100% correct.

" ... most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim."

You, however, were very wrong for quoting her as saying "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

She never said that (quite the contrary), and neither has anyone else.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:55pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW: If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "[i]those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".
[/i]
Do you remember saying that?



Nope. Funnily enough. You'd have to be pretty thick to interpret what i said in that way.


It's not an interpretation, though.

He put it in quotation marks.

He's claiming that you actually said these words: "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

Did he not think he'd be picked up on such a blatant lie?


I'll cop that, transposed an are and aren't in the middle of  tag team attacks.

I am an honest man Gregg.  Puts me light years ahead of you.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:57pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Oh I get it, it is unfortunate for you that I am only addressing what you said, and unfortunately for you, and for us, those things are done by Muslims.

Nobody has denied that.

And, additionally, "those things are done by people who aren't Muslim", just as mothra said.


Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
The reason. Islam is associated with terrorism is because of Islamic terrorists.

The reason non-Muslims are associated with terrorism is because of non-Muslim terrorists.


Mothra was wrong.  


Nope.

She was 100% correct.

" ... most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim."

You, however, were very wrong for quoting her as saying "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

She never said that (quite the contrary), and neither has anyone else.


Unlike your effort previous, all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslim.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:57pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


Did you like this bit?

SW: If you want to fix quotes fix the quote from your wingman who said that "[i]those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".
[/i]
Do you remember saying that?



Nope. Funnily enough. You'd have to be pretty thick to interpret what i said in that way.


It's not an interpretation, though.

He put it in quotation marks.

He's claiming that you actually said these words: "those things aren't done by people who are Muslim".

Did he not think he'd be picked up on such a blatant lie?


I'll cop that, transposed an are and aren't in the middle of  tag team attacks.

I am an honest man Gregg.  Puts me light years ahead of you.


See? Not wilful misrepresentation. Just incredible stupidity.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:13pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


Check, and mate!

;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:14pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


No, reasonable and rational people would understand that the reason why Islam is associated with terrorism is because of acts of terrorism by Islamic terrorists.

Your attempt at diversion has been noted.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:16pm
This is seriously just astonishing.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:17pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


No, reasonable and rational people would understand that the reason why Islam is associated with terrorism is because of ...


... the lies, misinformation, and propaganda spread by ignorant Islamophobes (who, by the way, are too stupid to understand that the majority of terrorist attacks, throughout histrory and all over the world, have been carried out by non-Muslims).


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:20pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


No, reasonable and rational people would understand that the reason why Islam is associated with terrorism is because of ...


... the lies, misinformation, and propaganda spread by ignorant Islamophobes (who, by the way, are too stupid to understand that the majority of terrorist attacks, throughout histrory and all over the world, have been carried out by non-Muslims).



Naaaah, pretty sure Islam is associated with terrorism because Muslims are engaging in acts of terrorism.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:21pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


So are we agreed then, the reason why Muslims are associated with terrorism is because Muslims are holding up signs that say "behead those who insult the prophet", are driving into crowds of people and blowing people up?

Cos I don't mind repeating it.  8-)



Not to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.


No, reasonable and rational people would understand that the reason why Islam is associated with terrorism is because of ...


... the lies, misinformation, and propaganda spread by ignorant Islamophobes (who, by the way, are too stupid to understand that the majority of terrorist attacks, throughout histrory and all over the world, have been carried out by non-Muslims).



Naaaah, pretty sure Islam is associated with terrorism because Muslims are engaging in acts of terrorism.


Non-Muslims are associated with terrorism because non-Muslims are engaging in acts of terrorism.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:23pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:16pm:
This is seriously just astonishing.


Yes, it is pretty astonishing that you don't accept that muslims committing acts of terrorism lead to an association with Islam to terrorism. 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:24pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:
Honestly remarkable.   :o


Yep.

I'm speechless.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:25pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:45pm:
Honestly remarkable.   :o


Yep.

I'm speechless.


Hahahah, your post count says different. 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:26pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:16pm:
This is seriously just astonishing.


I'm still speechless.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:28pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:26pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:16pm:
This is seriously just astonishing.


I'm still speechless.


My 11 year old reasons infinitely better than Secret.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Secret Wars on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:35pm
You pair need a room and some time?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by mothra on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:38pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:35pm:
You pair need a room and some time?


A joke my 11 year old wouldn't even stoop to.

Really bringing your A-game, aren't you Secret.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:48pm

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:59pm:
I don't see the difference between this video and The Life of Brian. Since when is it illegal to make fun of people in Australia?



It is illegal now -

where the hell is Yadda when you need him?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2017 at 6:55pm
Poll added. Please vote.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s25.html


Alinta wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 9:43pm:
I don't think he was charged for criticising the government.

When was this law made?


2001

Charged under S 25 (2)....

(2)     A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note

"Engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Penalty:     In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;

In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.

    (3)     For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), conduct—

        (a)     may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

        (b)     may occur in or outside Victoria.

    (4)     A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 6th, 2017 at 7:04pm
Big Brother decides what you can think & say.

George Orwell was correct - it's after 1984.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 6th, 2017 at 8:04pm

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:55pm:
Should it be illegal to make videos mocking Muslim terrorists?


Interesting that you assert this is what the video was about - given that it was specifically done as a protest to the construction of a mosque. Where do you get the link between mocking terrorists and opposing a new mosque? Its only possible to make such a link if you are somehow suggesting the new mosque will be connected with terrorism. The video was implying that with a new mosque comes more terrorism. It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism. That, I believe is what the court meant when they said it was holding muslim in contempt. And when this contempt comes in the form of such a violent and graphic demonstration, I think this is very sinister indeed.

Clearly the verdict was made with the context of the mosque protest in mind. Had it been as you claimed, nothing but mocking muslim terrorists (as opposed to blatantly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism), nothing would have happened.


Have you seen the video Gandalf? Do you agree that it is mocking terrorists?

What else should we refrain from saying whenever there is public discussion about building a mosque?


Yes I've seen it, and again I ask - what is the link between mocking terrorists and protesting the building of a mosque.

If I was a muslim in Bendigo, I would be justifiably concerned for my safety and the safety of my family - after seeing such a graphic and violent demonstration simply because a place for me to worship peacefully is being built.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 6th, 2017 at 8:24pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 8:04pm:
If I was a muslim in Bendigo, I would be justifiably concerned for my safety and the safety of my family - after seeing such a graphic and violent demonstration



But it's OK for Muslims to have signs saying

behead those who insult Islam.





I can detect hypocrisy here Gandalf.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:06pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.

When they Allahu Akhbar while they are doing all those 'non-Muslim' acts of jihad - is that to throw you off scent?   And who ARE they, if not Muslims, those Allahu Akhbaring Koran-followers?  Who IS a goddam Muslim when the Koran reciting, allahu akhbaring, Muslim attired people are NOT Muslims??

Who IS a frikken Muslim? How do you tell a Muslim if none of the hitherto recognised signifiers apply??


Once again, yet again, still - You are out of your finely tuned critical non-thinking mind, Mother.








Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 9:55pm:
Should it be illegal to make videos mocking Muslim terrorists?


Interesting that you assert this is what the video was about - given that it was specifically done as a protest to the construction of a mosque. Where do you get the link between mocking terrorists and opposing a new mosque? Its only possible to make such a link if you are somehow suggesting the new mosque will be connected with terrorism. The video was implying that with a new mosque comes more terrorism. It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism. That, I believe is what the court meant when they said it was holding muslim in contempt. And when this contempt comes in the form of such a violent and graphic demonstration, I think this is very sinister indeed.

Clearly the verdict was made with the context of the mosque protest in mind. Had it been as you claimed, nothing but mocking muslim terrorists (as opposed to blatantly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism), nothing would have happened.


Have you seen the video Gandalf? Do you agree that it is mocking terrorists?

What else should we refrain from saying whenever there is public discussion about building a mosque?


Yes I've seen it, and again I ask - what is the link between mocking terrorists and protesting the building of a mosque.

If I was a muslim in Bendigo, I would be justifiably concerned for my safety and the safety of my family - after seeing such a graphic and violent demonstration simply because a place for me to worship peacefully is being built.


Are you asking me what the link to the Mosque was? Your story, not mine. We are talking about the video Gandalf. The video is what they got arrested for. The video is mocking terrorists.

Do you support this law Gandalf?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm

Frank wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:06pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.

When they Allahu Akhbar while they are doing all those 'non-Muslim' acts of jihad - is that to throw you off scent?   And who ARE they, if not Muslims, those Allahu Akhbaring Koran-followers?  Who IS a goddam Muslim when the Koran reciting, allahu akhbaring, Muslim attired people are NOT Muslims??

Who IS a frikken Muslim? How do you tell a Muslim if none of the hitherto recognised signifiers apply??


Once again, yet again, still - You are out of your finely tuned critical non-thinking mind, Mother.


Wow!

Just Wow!

And I thought SW was thick.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:24pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 8:04pm:
If I was a muslim in Bendigo, I would be justifiably concerned for my safety and the safety of my family - after seeing such a graphic and violent demonstration



But it's OK for Muslims to have signs saying

behead those who insult Islam.





I can detect hypocrisy here Gandalf.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:29pm
Gandalf is worried that non-Muslims mocking terrorism might make them stop fearing it. And we all know how dangerous people are when they are not afraid, don't we? Of all the criticism of Islam he could choose to get wound up about, he decides that mocking terrorists should be banned.

Depending on the broader social context of course.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:36pm

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:29pm:
Gandalf is worried that non-Muslims mocking terrorism might make them stop fearing it. And we all know how dangerous people are when they are not afraid, don't we? Of all the criticism of Islam he could choose to get wound up about, he decides that mocking terrorists should be banned.

Depending on the broader social context of course.



People are justifiably frightened of hoards of Muslims
protesting in streets wanting to cut Christians heads off.

Why won't Gandalf deal with this?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Sep 6th, 2017 at 11:08pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:36pm:
People are justifiably frightened of hoards of Racists
protesting in streets wanting to cut Moslem heads off.

Why won't Gandalf deal with this?



Yeah Gandalf...

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 6th, 2017 at 11:13pm
Gandalf is an Islamic reformer. Banning criticism of Islam is a top priority for him.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Moriaty on Sep 6th, 2017 at 11:13pm

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:39pm:


This should be the official banner of the Blair Cockrill and the far-right...

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:56am

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm:
Are you asking me what the link to the Mosque was? Your story, not mine.


My story? FD the video was made specifically as part of the protest against the mosque. It was filmed on the doorstep of the council chamber where the decision to proceed with the building was made.

Were you not aware of this?

Are you still sticking to your 'nothing but harmless mocking of terrorists' line?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:59am

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:29pm:
Gandalf is worried that non-Muslims mocking terrorism might make them stop fearing it. And we all know how dangerous people are when they are not afraid, don't we? Of all the criticism of Islam he could choose to get wound up about, he decides that mocking terrorists should be banned.

Depending on the broader social context of course.


Gandalf is justifiably disturbed by people conducting a graphic and violent mock beheading as part of a protest against the building of a communal place of worship.

This isn't just a muslim "thing" - everyone should be concerned about such behaviour.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:04am

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm:
The video is what they got arrested for. The video is mocking terrorists


And I'm telling you, the video can't be separated from the mosque protest. It was filmed outside the council chamber that approved the building. Quite simply, the film makers would not have been arrested if it couldn't be linked to the mosque protest (and therefore wasn't an attack on the entire muslim community). This was central to the prosecution's case, if you bothered to read your own article.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:06am
People are justifiably frightened of hoards of Muslims
protesting in streets wanting to cut Christians heads off.

Why won't Gandalf deal with this?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:09am

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:06am:
People are justifiably frightened of hoards of Muslims
protesting in streets wanting to cut Christians heads off.

Why won't Gandalf deal with this?


Exactly how should I deal with it Bobby?

Make a beheading film?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:44am

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:09am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:06am:
People are justifiably frightened of hoards of Muslims
protesting in streets wanting to cut Christians heads off.

Why won't Gandalf deal with this?


Exactly how should I deal with it Bobby?

Make a beheading film?



You should show your support for Blair Cottrel.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:08am

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:04am:

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm:
The video is what they got arrested for. The video is mocking terrorists


And I'm telling you, the video can't be separated from the mosque protest. It was filmed outside the council chamber that approved the building. Quite simply, the film makers would not have been arrested if it couldn't be linked to the mosque protest (and therefore wasn't an attack on the entire muslim community). This was central to the prosecution's case, if you bothered to read your own article.


So why did you ask me to tell you what the link to the mosque was?

And why should a broader public discussion about a mosque suddenly make it illegal to mock terrorists? What else do you think it should be illegal to say in Bendigo until the mosque is built?

Do you support this law?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:48pm

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:08am:
And why should a broader public discussion about a mosque suddenly make it illegal to mock terrorists? What else do you think it should be illegal to say in Bendigo until the mosque is built?


I didn't say it should be illegal, I'm just refuting your claim that its nothing but a bit of harmless terrorist mocking. It is not - it is clearly associating regular worshippers in Australia with vicious terrorists. They made the connection pretty clear by staging the video right outside the very council chamber in which the mosque approval was made.


freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:08am:
Do you support this law?


I am undecided. However just in this case, I think its a good thing that such an intimidating and hateful statement directed towards peaceful worshippers received some sort of sanction.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 7th, 2017 at 10:04pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:06pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:33pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 3:14pm:
It was directly associating the entire muslim community with terrorism.


What does holding up signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" or driving into crowds of people or blowing people up associate Muslims with?


Nothing, to a reasonable, rational person. They understand immediately that most Muslims don't do those things and that those things are done by people who aren't Muslim.

When they Allahu Akhbar while they are doing all those 'non-Muslim' acts of jihad - is that to throw you off scent?   And who ARE they, if not Muslims, those Allahu Akhbaring Koran-followers?  Who IS a goddam Muslim when the Koran reciting, allahu akhbaring, Muslim attired people are NOT Muslims??

Who IS a frikken Muslim? How do you tell a Muslim if none of the hitherto recognised signifiers apply??


Once again, yet again, still - You are out of your finely tuned critical non-thinking mind, Mother.


Wow!

Just Wow!


;D ;D

The incomprehending triggered snowflake's  response. From an unflushable turd.
Thick, sheltered, free-floating.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 7th, 2017 at 10:10pm


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Poor, poor, Soren.  Don't you have some little kids to bully somewhere else?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 7th, 2017 at 11:37pm
Blair Cottrel gets his arse kicked but this is acceptable:






Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:29pm
Oh Gandalf definitely wants to ban those guys. They make it very difficult for him to get his 'Islam is peace' message across.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by gandalf on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn



You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 9th, 2017 at 8:33am

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:29pm:
Oh Gandalf definitely wants to ban those guys. They make it very difficult for him to get his 'Islam is peace' message across.


It seems that Muslims are supported by our Govt.
They have free license to spread their hate message:



Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:59am:

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:29pm:
Gandalf is worried that non-Muslims mocking terrorism might make them stop fearing it. And we all know how dangerous people are when they are not afraid, don't we? Of all the criticism of Islam he could choose to get wound up about, he decides that mocking terrorists should be banned.

Depending on the broader social context of course.


Gandalf is justifiably disturbed by people conducting a graphic and violent mock beheading as part of a protest against the building of a communal place of worship.

This isn't just a muslim "thing" - everyone should be concerned about such behaviour.

But allahu akhbaring while beheading people on youtube IS a muslim thing.  Nobody else is doing such things.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:11pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:59am:

freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:29pm:
Gandalf is worried that non-Muslims mocking terrorism might make them stop fearing it. And we all know how dangerous people are when they are not afraid, don't we? Of all the criticism of Islam he could choose to get wound up about, he decides that mocking terrorists should be banned.

Depending on the broader social context of course.


Gandalf is justifiably disturbed by people conducting a graphic and violent mock beheading as part of a protest against the building of a communal place of worship.

This isn't just a muslim "thing" - everyone should be concerned about such behaviour.

But allahu akhbaring while beheading people on youtube IS a muslim thing.  Nobody else is doing such things.
Allahu akhbaring while driving trucks into crowds, suicide bombing in crowds, knifing shoppers, attacking police - muslim things. 

A mock beheading while reciting the periodic table would not be understood by anyone. The same act while allahu akhbaring makes instant sense to everyone.


Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm:
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?


if it annoys you I'll support it.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:57pm

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn


You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Been suffering paranoia long, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:11pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn


You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Been suffering paranoia long, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Oh, you recovered?
:'(

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:11pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn


You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Been suffering paranoia long, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Oh, you recovered?
:'(

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:48pm

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm:
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?


if it annoys you I'll support it.


Let me guess, you won't stand on principle?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:55pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm:
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?


if it annoys you I'll support it.


Let me guess, you won't stand on principle?


who's principles are you referring to here FD?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:01pm

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm:
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?


if it annoys you I'll support it.


Let me guess, you won't stand on principle?


who's principles are you referring to here FD?


Don't you have any of your own?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:02pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 12:12pm:
Is anyone here willing to admit to supporting this law?


if it annoys you I'll support it.


Let me guess, you won't stand on principle?


who's principles are you referring to here FD?


Don't you have any of your own?


even a simple question like that is beyond you to answer FD? what are you scared of?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:16pm
If you are going to stand on principle John, I recommend standing on your own principles. That's how it works, with people who have principles.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:40pm
Allahu akhbaring while beheading someone is now muslim religious activity and deminstrates islamic religious belief???   I hope they appeal on this ground.


RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 - SECT 25

Offence of serious religious vilification
    (1)     A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely—

        (a)     to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons; and

        (b)     to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Karnal on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:05pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:16pm:
If you are going to stand on principle John, I recommend standing on your own principles. That's how it works, with people who have principles.


FD, you see, has principles.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:07pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 4:16pm:
If you are going to stand on principle John, I recommend standing on your own principles. That's how it works, with people who have principles.


How would you know, did you read that on your weetbix box?

I see you're still refusing to provide an answer to a very simple question. Is that a decision you base on your principles FD?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:21pm

Frank wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn


You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Been suffering paranoia long, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Oh, you recovered?
:'(



Was never suffering anything, unlike you...  ::) ::)

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by freediver on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by moses on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:38pm
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 - SECT 25

Offence of serious religious vilification
    (1)     A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely—

        (a)     to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons; and

        (b)     to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.


Just a few from the qur'an, do they breech SECT 25?

qur'an 3.151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

qur'an 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

qur'an 66.9: O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.[/quote]

qur'an 5.51: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

qur'an 9.23: O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

qur'an 8.55: For the vilest of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

qur'an 9.73: O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 7:01pm

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?



You are going to trigger him....

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Frank on Sep 9th, 2017 at 7:46pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:21pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 2:57pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
oh dear, tsk tsk, rolls eyes, yawn


You ARE bleedin' Bwian!!! I knew it!!!  :P




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Been suffering paranoia long, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Oh, you recovered?
:'(



Was never suffering anything

Very sorry to hear that.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Karnal on Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:21am

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?


FD, do you have the right to answer questions?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:48am

Karnal wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:21am:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?


FD, do you have the right to answer questions?


It goes against his principles!

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Lisa Jones on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:50am

Karnal wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:21am:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?


FD, do you have the right to answer questions?


Confuse your multi nics/screens eh?

Pfffft!!

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:53am
Blair Cottrel gets his arse kicked but this is acceptable:







Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Justsayno on Sep 10th, 2017 at 12:51pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:53am:
Blair Cottrel gets his arse kicked but this is acceptable:


Yes Bobby, and he was complaining about a mosque being built in Bendigo. I wonder how much of a sling the councillors copt for passing it?

Obviously the Jews in Sydney didn't have as much money as the Saudi funded muslims for they got their synagogue knocked back because of "Terrorism"

"Bondi synagogue ban over terrorism risk leaves Jewish community shocked and furious"

national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4
 

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Karnal on Sep 11th, 2017 at 5:59am

Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Not sure what the outcome of this was. I can't find any more recent news.


You really need to do more research. This Hitler wanna-be is due back in court on September 4.

Hopefully he is sent to some small island to serve as a toilet cleaner, which is a bit of an intellectual stretch for this ardent supporter of Hitler's social and political agenda's.


Now now, Moriarty. FD supports Freeeedom.

He's switched allegiances from the "Sustainability" Party to the UPF, that's all. FD, you see, has become a patriot - with principles.

Ask him about it. FD's sure to give you a genuine answer.

In the fullness of time.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Karnal on Sep 11th, 2017 at 6:29am

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:48am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:21am:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?


FD, do you have the right to answer questions?


It goes against his principles!


Oh, I wish FD would troll me. Could you ask him, JS? I think He's still talking to you.

Ask him to give me questions. I simply love them. Unfortunately, all I get these days is the odd sulk from Alevine. I'd love a gen-u-wine FD interrogation.

What do I have to do?

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by John Smith on Sep 11th, 2017 at 12:09pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 6:29am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:48am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 2:21am:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 6:22pm:
Brian do you have the right to criticise other religions?


FD, do you have the right to answer questions?


It goes against his principles!


Oh, I wish FD would troll me. Could you ask him, JS? I think He's still talking to you.

Ask him to give me questions. I simply love them. Unfortunately, all I get these days is the odd sulk from Alevine. I'd love a gen-u-wine FD interrogation.

What do I have to do?


He does seem to avoid you doesn't he.  ;D ;D

Title: Re: Blair Cottrell
Post by Bobby. on Nov 25th, 2019 at 6:47pm
The latest 2 hour video with Blair Cottrell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88UYpDtDNsY


Ep. 24 Thirty Years Later
363 views
•Streamed live 21 hours ago

Tim Wilms


I was born in November 1989 when the Berlin Wall was coming down and 20th century communism collapsed. On this special episode of WilmsFront I reflect how much that world has changed in my lifetime thirty years later. My guest was another local South East Melbournian who also turned 30 this month patriot activist Blair Cottrell.

We begin the show by reflecting on and further analyzing Blair’s appeal trial against his 2017 blasphemy conviction under section 25(2) of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. The prosecution and conviction were due to Blair’s role in performing a mock beheading in Bendigo during the United Patriots Fronts’ activism against Mosque application in the city in 2015. I ask Blair given the online and financial deplatforming he has experienced during the legal saga if pursuing the matter was worth it.

In the south-east suburbs of Melbourne where we grew up Frankston was the central area. In the early 90s drugs and crime were rampant, but the area was still a monocultural white area with no further diversity problems. The social problems in the area still remain but the area has not stayed immune from newer economic and community dislocation caused by mass migration.

The education system has turned into a cultural Marxist brainwashing factory today. When we were at school there were no racial tribes, Australian history was taught has a positive influence, and we were not reported and reeducated for supposed racist and sexist behaviour. Higher education has become worthless with more people attending, yet the trades that have been demonised have seen a skills shortage.

I also pick Blair’s brains about the groyper war that has occurred in the United States against Conservative Inc for refusing to talk about the real problems facing the west. The purging that the groypers have experienced is similar to what Blair and other patriots have experienced in Australia. Mainstream conservatives appear more comfortable talking to socialists than nationalists.

Title: Re: Blair Cottrel
Post by Bobby. on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:00pm
Patriotic Weekly Review - with Blair Cottrell.

Episode 31 of Patriotic Weekly Review with special guest Blair Cottrell as well as regular contributors No White Guilt and Dr Patrick Slattery.

Patriotic Weekly Review is a news and entertainment talk show. Opinions, thoughts, and views of guests..



https://www.bitchute.com/video/iI4z13ppSNM/

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2021. All Rights Reserved.