Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/freedom-speech-unpopular-people.html

Our freedom of speech is being eroded on several fronts. Broad and ill-conceived legislation has been passed in both state and federal parliaments that is fundamentally incompatible with the right to speak your mind. This is coinciding with extra-legal attacks on our rights, including the use of violence and intimidation. While these attacks often generate significant debate about freedom of speech when they involve violence or celebrities, the denial of basic human rights to unpopular political agitators often goes unnoticed. Yet it is the unpopular, crazy and ignorant people whose rights are most at risk. They are the singing canaries whose silence should warn us of toxic air. As well as undermining our own freedom, making these people genuine martyrs elevates their status by giving them a legitimacy that their views would otherwise not afford.

Blair Cottrel, victim of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act

A Victorian man has been charged under state legislation that makes it illegal to “knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule” of people based on their religion or religious activities. Consider the obscure wording of this legislation. The worst possible outcome envisaged is ridicule and contempt, not violence. Unlike libel and slander, the legislation does not consider the possibility that a person’s religious views deserve ridicule and contempt. Nor does it require the guilty party to actually ridicule anyone. It does not even require the guilty party to incite ridicule. Rather, the legislation makes it illegal to have an intention of inciting contempt or ridicule while “engaging in conduct”. This is about as far removed from actually doing something wrong as it is possible to get.

The man’s name is Blair Cottrel. His ‘crime’ was to make a beheading video as a way of protesting a new Mosque in Bendigo. He has also been charged with defacing a footpath and garden wall while making the video. This crime was committed on October 4, 2015. He appeared in court on March 6 and May 3, 2017 and is due to reappear on September 4, 2017. The legislation was passed by Victorian Parliament in 2001 (Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, Part4, Section 25, the “Offence of serious religious vilification”).

Discussion of Blair Cottrel's case

Antifa

Court appearances by Cottrel are often accompanied by protests from his supporters, as well as counter-protests from various “antifa” (anti fascist) groups. These groups often explicitly use violence and intimidation to disrupt legitimate protests. They are effectively the militant arm of the political correctness movement. After Cottrel’s court appearance in March, Debbie Brennan, a spokeswoman for Campaign Against Racism and Facism, who organised the counter-protest, was quoted in the media as saying "We know the importance of exercising our free speech to stop their hate speech." Such clumsy attempts to redefine freedom of speech are common among supporters of this legislation.

Violent Antifa protestor claims victimhood after being punched in face

Antifa claims victimhood on behalf of Andrew Bolt's attackers

Gerald Fredrick Töben, victim of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act

There has been significant media coverage of the federal Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. In particular, section 18c, added in 1995, makes it illegal to “to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” people based on “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. It repeatedly hit the front page after Andrew Bolt was found to have violated the act in 2011. Later, a cartoon by Bill Leak triggered an investigation, until the complaint was withdrawn. Leak died shortly after of a heart attack, after citing the enourmous stress of facing a protracted legal battle over a cartoon. These two cases rightly triggered much public and parliamentary debate about freedom of speech. However, as with Blair Cottrel, the worst legal excesses occurred against the most politically unpopular people. In 2000, Gerald Fredrick Töben was found guilty of violating section 18c by denying the holocaust. Töben refused to comply with court orders and continued denying the holocaust online. He was eventually jailed for what amounts to expressing an incorrect opinion about history.

Discussion of Töben's case

Children targetted in QLD Schools

Education bureaucrats in the State of QLD have started targeting primary school children who talk about Jesus, exchange Christmas cards that mention the birth of Jesus, or encourage Christianity.

Discussion

Islam

By far the greatest threat to freedom of speech comes from militant Islam. Where Australian journalists have faced fines and being forced to apologise, as well as countless hours sitting through the plodding bureaucracy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Islamic extremists have made it clear that no-one in the world is safe from them. Film makers, cartoonists and authors face a very real threat of murder for depicting or mocking the prophet Muhammad. This has already had a significant chilling effect on free speech globally.

However, the direct assault on freedom of speech does not just come from Islam’s fringe. There is broad support among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims for blasphemy legislation, so it is unlikely that Muslim nations will adopt freedom of speech or other fundamental human rights any time soon. In fact, Muslim nations are trying to strip the rights and freedoms of everyone. For example, in March 2008, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim nations, tried to get the United Nations to make it illegal to criticise Islam. Luckily, they failed.

More info on the OIC's attack on freedom of speech

In March 2009, a United Nations forum passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries. The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states.

Well this is what happens when you don't actually have any decent codified human rights.

It's the way the government likes it too.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People

You seem to have mysteriously forgotten a far more high profile case involving Yassmin Abdel-Magied who made the following facebook post

"LEST. WE. FORGET. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine …)"

She then deleted the post and apologised for it, but this didn't stop a conservative campaign against her which included:

Pauline Hanson calling for her to be deported
Conservative media and politicians calling for her to be sacked
Right Wing extremists calling for her to be jailed
Nut cases sending death threats and rape threats

She was eventually hounded out of the country

Can't think why you have omitted this blatant attack on freedom of speech  ;)

Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech. She should have been sacked instead of given the option of quitting. Image management was her job, and she failed miserably.

She was not hounded out of the country. She did a drama queen exit.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:11pm:

Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech.

So you think that mounting a campaign to sack someone isn't an attack on their freedom of speech?

You seem to have a highly flexible attitude to freedom of speech

She was being paid from government coffers in a media job with a job description that presumably included not saying idiotic things on the internet.

If a bricklayer cannot lay bricks, he gets fired. This is not a violation of his right to not lay bricks. Likewise if a media personality cannot manage their public image and refrain from bringing their employer into disrepute, they get fired. She still has the right to say idiotic things on the internet.

There is nothing "flexible" at all in my approach. If Cottrel had a similar job with the ABC, I would not complain about him getting sacked for the stupid poo he does. He is not getting sacked. He is getting charged by the police. Getting dragged through the courts for making a dodgy video is a violation of freedom of speech.

Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims

John Lyons says he was put under constant pressure when covering the Middle East for the Australian, and so were ABC reporters Sophie McNeill and Peter Cave

In his Middle East memoir Balcony Over Jerusalem, Lyons says Cave told him another group prepared dossiers on Cave and other ABC reporters “and sent them to like-minded journalists and members of parliament”.

Lyons says pressure also came from inside his own paper. He says the former editor of the Weekend Australian Nick Cater refused to publish his work and the pro-Israel lobby bombarded editors with criticism of his reports.

“I phoned Cater and he confirmed that he’d asked for my work to no longer appear in Inquirer [the Australian’s Saturday opinion section],” Lyons writes.

“I let [editor-in-chief Chris] Mitchell know that, from my point of view, the exclusion from Inquirer was just the latest in a long series of disagreements with Nick Cater … he intervened and told Cater that excluding me from Inquirer was not acceptable.”

Lyons writes that an Israeli embassy official was invited by Cater to the Australian’s head office in Sydney, and told editors that the embassy was not happy with him. “To me the idea of an officer of a foreign government wandering the floor of my newsroom criticising me was outrageous.”

Lyons interviewed Mitchell and others for the book, but Cater declined.

In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said “one of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza”.

The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board.

“I will not cower to the AIJAC,” Scott said, according to Lyons.

more :

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/29/pro-israel-advocates-in-australia-targeted-three-journalists-new-book-claims

Not getting published in The Weekend Australian is not a violation of your freedom of speech either. John Lyons gets his opinion out there more successfully than 99% of the population.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

If a bricklayer cannot lay bricks, he gets fired. This is not a violation of his right to not lay bricks. Likewise if a media personality cannot manage their public image and refrain from bringing their employer into disrepute, they get fired. She still has the right to say idiotic things on the internet.

Likewise?
You have tried to compare 2 entirely different scenarios. It is a strawman argument.

Ironically though, your dismissal of Yassmin Abdel-Magied's right to freedom of speech because she is unpopular (being both female and a Muslim) actually supports your thread title.

I am not dismissing her rights.

If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking.

Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle.

I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:

I am not dismissing her rights. If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking.

Writing an inoffensive tweet and expressing her beliefs about sharia had nothing to do with her ability to do her job.

She was intimidated into self-censoring, and her employer was eventually intimidated into terminating her employment.

You know, the sort of self censorship you always cry about - when its muslims causing it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:25pm: If a bricklayer cannot lay bricks, he gets fired. This is not a violation of his right to not lay bricks. Likewise if a media personality cannot manage their public image and refrain from bringing their employer into disrepute, they get fired. She still has the right to say idiotic things on the internet. Likewise? You have tried to compare 2 entirely different scenarios. It is a strawman argument. Ironically though, your dismissal of Yassmin Abdel-Magied's right to freedom of speech because she is unpopular (being both female and a Muslim) actually supports your thread title.

She absolutely has a limited right to free speech as do we all, what she does not have the right to, is to be free of criticism for moronic comments.


She has been bubble wrapped in a socialist paradise for so long that when the going gets tough, like out here in the real world she fkks off like emotionally wounded princess.


Yeah people hate because she is rag headed bacon dodger, but so what.? Harden the fkk up and stop being a whinging b1tch.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:35pm: I am not dismissing her rights. If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking. Writing an inoffensive tweet and expressing her beliefs about sharia had nothing to do with her ability to do her job. She was intimidated into self-censoring, and her employer was eventually intimidated into terminating her employment. You know, the sort of self censorship you always cry about - when its muslims causing it.

Yeah, fkking annoying isn't it?


What goes around comes around, this is a nasty world we live, better get used to it.  :) :) :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle. I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights.

As are the rights of muslims to call for the murder of non-muslims


It is all part of the rich tapestry that is modern Australia, and for that we thank you muslims for bringing it here with you.  :) :)


What goes around, come around

---

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:35pm: I am not dismissing her rights. If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking. Writing an inoffensive tweet and expressing her beliefs about sharia had nothing to do with her ability to do her job. She was intimidated into self-censoring, and her employer was eventually intimidated into terminating her employment. You know, the sort of self censorship you always cry about - when its muslims causing it.

Being an idiot publicly does affect her ability to be a public face of the ABC. They were not intimidated. They fired her for being an idiot. They made no effort to stop her being an idiot.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:11pm:

Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech. She should have been sacked instead of given the option of quitting. Image management was her job, and she failed miserably. She was not hounded out of the country. She did a drama queen exit.

I agree FD, she's such a drama queen. Imagine a muslim objecting to calls to rape or murder her. How dare she. She should piss of back to where she came from.
::) ::) ::)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 11:41am: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People You seem to have mysteriously forgotten a far more high profile case involving Yassmin Abdel-Magied who made the following facebook post "LEST. WE. FORGET. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine …)" She then deleted the post and apologised for it, but this didn't stop a conservative campaign against her which included: Pauline Hanson calling for her to be deported Conservative media and politicians calling for her to be sacked Right Wing extremists calling for her to be jailed Nut cases sending death threats and rape threats She was eventually hounded out of the country Can't think why you have omitted this blatant attack on freedom of speech  ;)

He also left out zaky mallah .... :D :D  :D

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:42pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:35pm: I am not dismissing her rights. If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking. Writing an inoffensive tweet and expressing her beliefs about sharia had nothing to do with her ability to do her job. She was intimidated into self-censoring, and her employer was eventually intimidated into terminating her employment. You know, the sort of self censorship you always cry about - when its muslims causing it. Being an idiot publicly does affect her ability to be a public face of the ABC. They were not intimidated. They fired her for being an idiot. They made no effort to stop her being an idiot.

Tell me FD, do you think being threatened with gang rape for expressing your opinion might be an issue vis freedom of speech?

Of course.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Of course.

Let's see page after page of quote bombs of your own where you say as much, Effendi.

Here is an example of me saying it Aussie:


freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Of course.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Of course.

And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:50pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle. I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights. As are the rights of muslims to call for the murder of non-muslims It is all part of the rich tapestry that is modern Australia, and for that we thank you muslims for bringing it here with you.  :) :) What goes around, come around

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Posters_that_are_not_allowed.jpg

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Of course. And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated?

I do not think it is even possible to get that woman to shut up. She puts her foot in it every time she opens her mouth, so I doubt she is self censoring. So no, I am not particularly concerned. Are you? Which aspects of her treatment in particular worry you?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Of course. And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? I do not think it is even possible to get that woman to shut up. She puts her foot in it every time she opens her mouth, so I doubt she is self censoring. So no, I am not particularly concerned. Are you? Which aspects of her treatment in particular worry you?

Every time? Perhaps you have an extensive list of social and political gaffes she's made that has seen  her foot enter her mouth on every occasion?

Would you like to share it with us?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated?

of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman.
Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD?

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD?

and a fa rking idiot.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot.

so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed.

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed.

And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I?

Gandalf I recall you were opposed to 18c. Yet you support the Victorian legislation that Blair Cottrel is being charged with. As far as I can tell, the Victorian legislation is worse. What makes you support it but not 18c?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I?

you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience.

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:50pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience.

Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it.

She ... said some controversial things?!?

Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman?

Deport her! Then rape her!

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. She ... said some controversial things?!? Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman? Deport her! Then rape her!

Bloody oath she did. There's loads of stuff she has said that puts Australia in a negative light. Plus defending Sharia and calling Islam a feminist religion. She's an idiot.

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. She ... said some controversial things?!? Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman? Deport her! Then rape her!

People don't like her because of the stupid ideas in her head.

We need people who can really ask the hard questions the conservative Muslims don't want to hear.

Go Amina!!

https://twitter.com/Amina_Lone?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Quote:

Bloody oath she did. There's loads of stuff she has said that puts Australia in a negative light. Plus defending Sharia and calling Islam a feminist religion. She's an idiot.

Should be easy to provide a list of them all.  Let's see it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. She ... said some controversial things?!? Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman? Deport her! Then rape her! Bloody oath she did. There's loads of stuff she has said that puts Australia in a negative light. Plus defending Sharia and calling Islam a feminist religion. She's an idiot.

What are these "loads of things"?

And what's wrong with talking about Sharia or suggesting her faith marries well with her politics?

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:00pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:58pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. She ... said some controversial things?!? Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman? Deport her! Then rape her! Bloody oath she did. There's loads of stuff she has said that puts Australia in a negative light. Plus defending Sharia and calling Islam a feminist religion. She's an idiot. What are these "loads of things"? And what's wrong with talking about Sharia or suggesting her faith marries well with her politics?

Her facebook accounts were full of stuff about white racists and our xenophobic governments blah blah blah. And then she calls Islam a feminist religion??? Plus going off on Q&A made her look mentally sick.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:02pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:58pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. She ... said some controversial things?!? Doesn't she know she a Muslim? And a woman? Deport her! Then rape her! Bloody oath she did. There's loads of stuff she has said that puts Australia in a negative light. Plus defending Sharia and calling Islam a feminist religion. She's an idiot. What are these "loads of things"? And what's wrong with talking about Sharia or suggesting her faith marries well with her politics? Her facebook accounts were full of stuff about white racists and our xenophobic governments blah blah blah. And then she calls Islam a feminist religion??? Plus going off on Q&A made her look mentally sick.

BAN HER.

Yassmin misused public money to fund her tour of the middle east to promote her new book. As if that wasn't stupid enough, she then took that opportunity, standing on the doorstep of the middle east's newly resurgent sex slave industry at the hands of another Islamic state, to declare to the world that Islam is the most feminist of all religions.

Then there was the ANZAC day tweet.

Since then she has been digging herself in ever deeper with hysterical press releases blaming everyone but herself for the destruction of her public image. She blames Islamophobia for people disliking her. She cannot fathom that it might be something to do with all the incredibly stupid things she says.

She is turning into a Kim Kardashian, only not as good looking. Any publicity is good publicity, and she will do anything for it.

Bottom line is, being called an idiot for saying stupid things is not a violation of her freedom of speech. Yassmin had and continues to have far more access to publicity for her opinion than 99.99% of the population.

She didn't "go off" in the slightest. Nor is she racist.

You guys are fighting what you're pretending she has said ... not what she actually has. And you're using that to make up what she meant ... and you're all having enormous tantrums over it.

It's very silly.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Yassmin misused public money to fund her tour of the middle east to promote her new book. As if that wasn't stupid enough, she then took that opportunity, standing on the doorstep of the middle east's newly resurgent sex slave industry at the hands of another Islamic state, to declare to the world that Islam is the most feminist of all religions. Then there was the ANZAC day tweet. Since then she has been digging herself in ever deeper with hysterical press releases blaming everyone but herself for the destruction of her public image. She blames Islamophobia for people disliking her. She cannot fathom that it might be something to do with all the incredibly stupid things she says. She is turning into a Kim Kardashian, only not as good looking. Any publicity is good publicity, and she will do anything for it.

A rather infused summation.

You asked us to give you examples of the stupid things she said and did. You got them.

http://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-20-at-1.34.40-PM.png

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Yassmin misused public money to fund her tour of the middle east to promote her new book.

Horseshit.  If what you say is true, when is she next to appear in Court for this 'misuse?'


Quote:

As if that wasn't stupid enough, she then took that opportunity, standing on the doorstep of the middle east's newly resurgent sex slave industry at the hands of another Islamic state, to declare to the world that Islam is the most feminist of all religions.

So what.  Is she not allowed to express her opinion if she wishes and where she wishes?  Would you want to stop her from doing so?


Quote:

Then there was the ANZAC day tweet.

Yes there was.  So?


Quote:

Since then she has been digging herself in ever deeper with hysterical press releases blaming everyone but herself for the destruction of her public image. She blames Islamophobia for people disliking her. She cannot fathom that it might be something to do with all the incredibly stupid things she says.

So what explanation can you offer which washes off the threats of death and rape?


Quote:

She is turning into a Kim Kardashian, only not as good looking. Any publicity is good publicity, and she will do anything for it.

Sorta like Bolt?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:

You asked us to give you examples of the stupid things she said and did. You got them.

Firstly , i disagree that all of those things are either stupid or particularly noteworthy, in the scheme of things.

Secondly, i asked you to qualify the statement that she has put her foot in her mouth every time she has opened it and that she has an extensive lift of social and political gaffes.

You, and Hammer now, have both made that claim. 

I am waiting for someone to find something she has said that i'm supposed to have reacted strongly to. Strong enough to call for her to be actioned, violated and deported.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it.

mass media? she made a tweet you numbnuts. The only people to see it are those that follow her anyway.

She is allowed to express her opinion. People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie.


Quote:

mass media? she made a tweet you numbnuts. The only people to see it are those that follow her anyway.

And the front page of the newspaper, where a lot of her more ludicrous tweets ended up.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

She is allowed to express her opinion. People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie.

But that's not what we're talking about, now is it?

In any event, by your argument, people are entitled to call those calling her an idiot idiots. Distraction to the point.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie.

that's the way FD, keep pretending there weren't calls for her to be raped or killed.  :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

She is allowed to express her opinion. People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie. Quote: mass media? she made a tweet you numbnuts. The only people to see it are those that follow her anyway. And the front page of the newspaper, where a lot of her more ludicrous tweets ended up.

Oh really? What other ones?

Does anyone have an opinion they would like to share on the Victorian legislation that Blair Cottrel is being prosecuted under?

Or Toben's jailing for violating 18C?

Or the crackdown on primary school children associating Christmas with Jesus?

Or antifa groups using violence and intimidation to disrupt legitimate protests?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

She is allowed to express her opinion. People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie. Quote: mass media? she made a tweet you numbnuts. The only people to see it are those that follow her anyway. And the front page of the newspaper, where a lot of her more ludicrous tweets ended up.

it only ended up on the front page of the media because the Islamaphobes pretended to get all upset over it.

Quote:

She is allowed to express her opinion. People are allowed to call her an idiot for all the stupid things she says and does. That is how freedom of speech works Aussie.

Of course they are!  Is anyone suggesting otherwise?

FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot.

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:53pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:47pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 5:43pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? of course not ... not only is she tinted, but she's a muslim AND a woman. Shut her up, once and for all. Ain't that right FD? and a fa rking idiot. so are you, and yet I don't see anyone saying you should be raped or killed. And so are you. I'm not inflicting myself on the Australian people via the mass media, am I? you're on this site ... you're not only inflicting yourself on the Australian, but on a global audience. Oz Politics  isn't the mass media is it muppet? That retarded ugly black Muslim woman got up on television and on social media and said controversial things. It's her own fault. She should have STFU but her ego wouldn't allow it. mass media? she made a tweet you numbnuts. The only people to see it are those that follow her anyway.

Hahaha, you just finished saying just up there that posts on this forum are inflicted on a global audience but now tweets are only to people who follow her?

;D

That sort of idiocy is inevitable when you change arguments to suit who you are defending or attacking instead of basing them on principles.

You are welcome.   :)

Has she left yet?

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:21pm:

Hahaha, you just finished saying just up there that posts on this forum are inflicted on a global audience but now tweets are only to people who follow her?

yes ... both have the potential to reach as many people as each other.... your point?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot.

Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK. 

Free speech innit. 

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.

What does that have to do with Yassmin?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot.

Seems so......he ignores all the threats of violence offered her way.  Why is that, Effendi?  Does freedom of speech extend to that sort of crap?  If you were she, would you hang around in a place where retards are able to get away with that schit.......just to test their resolve and commitment to their cause?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle. I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights.

Precisely.

The right to free speech does not also enshrine the right not to collect a backwash of disapproval from your audience.

Gandalf I recall you were opposed to 18c. Yet you support the Victorian legislation that Blair Cottrel is being charged with. As far as I can tell, the Victorian legislation is worse. What makes you support it but not 18c?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle. I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights. Precisely. The right to free speech does not also enshrine the right not to collect a backwash of disapproval from your audience.

well said!

Aussie wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Seems so......he ignores all the threats of violence offered her way.  Why is that, Effendi?  Does freedom of speech extend to that sort of crap?  If you were she, would you hang around in a place where retards are able to get away with that schit.......just to test their resolve and commitment to their cause?

It was certainly ok by FD that the Antifa woman he liked to call Mouldylocks suffered the same treatment. Just went on and on about how he disagreed with what she had done. Not a word about what was done to her.

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:23pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.  What does that have to do with Yassmin?

Apologists like yourself will defend free speech but only from one direction. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:40pm: Depends on your definition of "right" baranacle. I think FD's contention is that reacting to her free speech by calling her to be deported - including by elected politicians, racially abusing her and threatening her with gang-rape, to the extent that she was forced to change her residence - doesn't violate her rights. Precisely. The right to free speech does not also enshrine the right not to collect a backwash of disapproval from your audience.

Who has questioned the right to disapprove?

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:27pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:24pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:23pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.  What does that have to do with Yassmin? Apologists like yourself will defend free speech but only from one direction.

that's ridiculous.

Would you like to try again? Or just recant your statement?

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

that's the way FD, keep pretending there weren't calls for her to be raped or killed.  :D :D :D

When do these threats ever get carried out?

It's rhetoric.

Wishful thinking.

While driving north to suck some Aussie beer and check out the Aussie catmeat women at the club... I was pondering on one of the Universe's great secrets...

(pulls up camp chair to fire..."

Now set down a piece and I'll lay it out for you...

Taking France as an example, they've accepted all these Muss-lims as refugees....  so it seems these Muss-lims all settle into ghettoes with crowding, high crime rates and low incomes - remarkably similar to Australia - in which their chances of a job are small and their chances of being robbed etc are high and the endless internecine pressure of tribe against tribe, village against village etc are a serious factor in raising their anger level .... anyway, all that notwithstanding, their declining economic state is now held up as one reason they become 'radicalised'.

Now - I'm only an old bushie here - but it seems to me that if they are becoming 'radicalised' through lack of economic opportunity - they are economic refugees, and not refugees pure and simple...  they came to France looking for a better deal and got a worse one, often through their own choices...

If things are so bad in France, they can always go back home....

Quote:

It was certainly ok by FD that the Antifa woman he liked to call Mouldylocks suffered the same treatment. Just went on and on about how he disagreed with what she had done. Not a word about what was done to her.

She got herself into a fight and got punched in the face as a result. No sympathy from me. She would have caused that man serious injury if he had not punched her in the face. She is part of a movement that consciously uses violence and intimidation to silence their opposition. She has threatened many people with violence herself.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:16pm: that's the way FD, keep pretending there weren't calls for her to be raped or killed.  :D :D :D When do these threats ever get carried out? It's rhetoric. Wishful thinking.

says the guy who hides under his bed when the neighbour says boo

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

She got herself into a fight and got punched in the face as a result. No sympathy from me. She would have caused that man serious injury if he had not punched her in the face. She is part of a movement that consciously uses violence and intimidation to silence their opposition.

Yes. So she deserved all of those threats of rape and death, her work details, home details, family details and nude photos published all over the internet with express instruction to do her harm?

Much like Yassmin has received? Should know threats of graphic theats of sexual violence and death are to be expected, rrrright? Boys will be boys, after all.

Pfffft. Uppity women , hey?

What nude photos of her?

Who is trying to silence her? Does she even have anything to say?

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:28pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:27pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:24pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:23pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.  What does that have to do with Yassmin? Apologists like yourself will defend free speech but only from one direction.  that's ridiculous. Would you like to try again? Or just recount your statement?

Did you mean recant dopey?

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:29pm: She got herself into a fight and got punched in the face as a result. No sympathy from me. She would have caused that man serious injury if he had not punched her in the face. She is part of a movement that consciously uses violence and intimidation to silence their opposition. Yes. So she deserved all of those threats of rape and death, her work details, home details, family details and nude photos published all over the internet with express instruction to do her harm? Much like Yassmin has received? Should know threats of graphic theats of sexual violence and death are to be expected, rrrright? Boys will be boys, after all. Pfffft. Uppity women , hey?

Justice Minister Michael Keenan said it was the 13th alleged conspiracy thwarted since the terror threat level was raised to "probable" in 2014.

Since that time, a total of 70 people have faced charges as a result of 31 operations.


And you wonder why people don't like Yasmin's  mouth??

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 4:04pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Of course. And yet you apparently have no freedom of speech concern with the way Yassmin Abdel-Magied was treated? I do not think it is even possible to get that woman to shut up. She puts her foot in it every time she opens her mouth, so I doubt she is self censoring. So no, I am not particularly concerned. Are you? Which aspects of her treatment in particular worry you?

What aspects? Well the whole threatening to rape her thing for a start. You apparently don't think its a problem because it just happened that the threats didn't cause her to self censor.

But what concerns me even more is that it seems to be whenever a tinted muslim woman in a headscarf speaks out, we get the same routine of a) gang rape threats and b) high shrill demands for her to be deported. In this case it might not have caused her to self-censor (though she did promptly delete her tweet and apologised), but it might be a different story for others.

But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. Case in point - in 2015 when a liberal MP did exactly what Yasminn was accused and given rape threats for - politicising ANZAC day, by making a crass comment about veterans benefiting from negative gearing. Did he get death threats, rape threats and calls for his deportation? Of course not. There was barely a whimper about it, and of course the MP didn't lose his job over it (he was a minister at the time). Bullying against those who speak up against racism and bigotry is always worse when the speaker is a woman - but its a whole different level when its a tinted woman and especially a hijabi. For some strange reason, the gang rape threats seem to go into overdrive against these women. Yasminn's ANZAC tweet saga has, if nothing else, shone a much needed light on this shameful aspect of our society.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards.

are we still pretending it was about the tweet?

Ok then! :D :D

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.

What on earth are you blubbering about?

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:28pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:27pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:24pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:23pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.  What does that have to do with Yassmin? Apologists like yourself will defend free speech but only from one direction.  that's ridiculous. Would you like to try again? Or just recount your statement? Did you mean recant dopey?

Yes i did, thank you. Damn auto-correct. I had it on because i was in Word. I'll turn it off.

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D

I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments??

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments??

Pauline Hanson has said a great deal more with a great many fewer consequences.

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:39pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:34pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:28pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:27pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:24pm: Secret Wars wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:23pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:20pm: FD's line here seems to be to pretend the worst thing that happened to Yasminn was that she was called an idiot. Yeah, it's not like she said people who insult the prophet should be beheaded.  Cos that would be OK.  Free speech innit.  What does that have to do with Yassmin? Apologists like yourself will defend free speech but only from one direction.  that's ridiculous. Would you like to try again? Or just recount your statement? Did you mean recant dopey? Yes i did, thank you. Damn auto-correct. I had it on because i was in Word. I'll turn it off.

Only after it was brought to her attention.

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:39pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments?? Pauline Hanson has said a great deal more with a great many fewer consequences.

Yasmin hasn't been thrown in jail on rubbish charges hey??

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:39pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments?? Pauline Hanson has said a great deal more with a great many fewer consequences. Yasmin hasn't been thrown in jail on rubbish charges hey??

They were rubbish charges?

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D

Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war)

I had no problem at all with her tweet.

mothra wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:43pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:42pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:39pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments?? Pauline Hanson has said a great deal more with a great many fewer consequences. Yasmin hasn't been thrown in jail on rubbish charges hey?? They were rubbish charges?

Oh yes. She was acquitted of all charges.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war)

What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet?

;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war) What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet?

There are many.  Which are you referring to?

Recount will do... endless repetition doeth no good and maketh not the truth...

Just saying... old Goebbels tried that one on.... then the Berliners began to count the Allied bombers oveheard..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJLlViJBtYI

A mix of B-17Fs and Gs - the G had the chin turret, but some Fs were retro-fitted....

A bit like the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain - in which 70% were Hurricanes - there were more Liberators than fortresses in the US Air Forces.... but the poor old Lib doesn't get much of a mention...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/B-24_Liberators_in_Formation%2C_1980.JPEG/220px-B-24_Liberators_in_Formation%2C_1980.JPEG

Gandalf I recall you were opposed to 18c. Yet you support the Victorian legislation that Blair Cottrel is being charged with. As far as I can tell, the Victorian legislation is worse. What makes you support it but not 18c?


Quote:

What aspects? Well the whole threatening to rape her thing for a start. You apparently don't think its a problem because it just happened that the threats didn't cause her to self censor.

Celebrities get wierd threats all the time. It sucks, but it is not really a freedom of speech issue. And you are correct that I do not take the threat seriously, and I do not think she does either. All her public comments I have seen were directed at the broader population for turning against her, basically labelling them all Islamophobes and playing the victim card. The first I even heard of the rape threats was one of the apologists here (John Smith I think) digging them up to try to change the subject when it was pointed out to him that all his shrill Islamophobia victimhood mongering on her behalf was based entirely on his own ignorance of what was going on. He quoted the threats. I googled the text. The only site that produced matching text was this forum.


Quote:

But what concerns me even more is that it seems to be whenever a tinted muslim woman in a headscarf speaks out, we get the same routine of a) gang rape threats and b) high shrill demands for her to be deported.

No we don't. Any such threats get a lot more publicity, but that does not mean they are any more common for Muslim celebrities.


Quote:

But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. Case in point - in 2015 when a liberal MP did exactly what Yasminn was accused and given rape threats for - politicising ANZAC day, by making a crass comment about veterans benefiting from negative gearing. Did he get death threats, rape threats and calls for his deportation? Of course not.

How do you know this? I would expect politicians get much worse in the mail. They just don't get all hysterical about it and use it to further their attention whoring agenda, or at least, their apologists do not.

This is just another example of reflexive Islamic victimhood mongering.


Quote:

Bullying against those who speak up against racism and bigotry is always worse when the speaker is a woman

She said Islam is the most feminist religion of all. She was not speaking out against bigotry, she was facilitating it. That is why everyone turned against her. There are plenty of Muslim feminists tackling the real issues. I believe some have even been championed in this thread. They stand in stark contrast to Yassmin.

Do you think this cartoon is a fair caricature of Yassmin's efforts to stand up to bigotry?

http://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-20-at-1.34.40-PM.png

Aussie wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:48pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war) What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet? There are many.  Which are you referring to?

are you Gandalf?

I tend to agree with Gandalf there - that tweet was not a slight on ANZAC - perhaps in poor taste, but not a slight...

but..... but .... but... freedom of speech rules are only there so unpopular people can get a say..... how else would they get in?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:48pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war) What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet? There are many.  Which are you referring to? are you Gandalf?

Pretend I am, and answer the question.

The Grappler wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

I tend to agree with Gandalf there - that tweet was not a slight on ANZAC - perhaps in poor taste, but not a slight...

Muslims hold the prophet dearly. That's why they rioted and murdered with a silly cartoon. Australians hold ANZAC Day very dearly because with many people it's intertwined with family both deceased and alive. For a Muslim (who aren't popular at the moment) to use the words about not forgetting our war dead to make a political swipe at our country pissed people off. They are similar incidents.

Aussie wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:51pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:48pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war) What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet? There are many.  Which are you referring to? are you Gandalf? Pretend I am, and answer the question.

I made my point.

Quote:

I made my point.

Really.....to make an idiot of yourself?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments??

I also didn't call for her to be raped or murdered.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war)

I agree. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the tweet. I also recall seeing diggers defend her comments at the time.
But the Islamphobes needed some fodder and that was ripe for the picking

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:47pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:42pm: mothra wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:39pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D I bet you weren't crying when Pauline Hanson copped all that s hit for her comments?? Pauline Hanson has said a great deal more with a great many fewer consequences. Yasmin hasn't been thrown in jail on rubbish charges hey?? They were rubbish charges? Oh yes. She was acquitted of all charges.

you should ask Abbott about the those charges, he's the one crying the most about free speech. :D :D

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:51pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:48pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:36pm: But perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the blatant double standards. are we still pretending it was about the tweet? Ok then! :D :D Personally I never did understand what was wrong with the tweet and why it got people into such a lather. Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any actual diggers object to it either - and indeed I did hear some who supported it. Seems to me it was an astute observation that was very much relevant to the ANZAC theme (all people referenced were victims of war) What's your opinion on cartoons of the prophet? There are many.  Which are you referring to? are you Gandalf? Pretend I am, and answer the question. I made my point.

if that was making your point then your point could only have been to look the fool ..... job done!

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

The Grappler wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 6:51pm: I tend to agree with Gandalf there - that tweet was not a slight on ANZAC - perhaps in poor taste, but not a slight... Muslims hold the prophet dearly. That's why they rioted and murdered with a silly cartoon. Australians hold ANZAC Day very dearly because with many people it's intertwined with family both deceased and alive. For a Muslim (who aren't popular at the moment) to use the words about not forgetting our war dead to make a political swipe at our country pissed people off. They are similar incidents.

there was no swipe at our country you cretin.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Gandalf I recall you were opposed to 18c. Yet you support the Victorian legislation that Blair Cottrel is being charged with. As far as I can tell, the Victorian legislation is worse. What makes you support it but not 18c?

18c is clumsily worded, but I'm not really opposed to it for the simple reason that I don't think its ever really caused actual violations of anyone's free speech - with the possible exception of holocaust deniers, but that I attribute to a very powerful lobby that is prepared to chase anyone to the ends of the earth who speaks out against the holocaust - rather than the actual legislation.

At the end of the day, on the few occasions 18c was actually invoked, the courts seem to have got it right in terms of protecting freedoms. I doubt that in the history of 18c anyone has actually been punished for causing mere offense on racial grounds. In spite of what the legislation says, judges have consistently demonstrated their unwillingness to rule against people's freedom on the mere basis of causing offense. The only example the critics seem to be able to come up with was the Queensland University case - which was thrown out anyway. I don't think anyone is even bothering to hold up Andrew Bolt as a martyr his defeat anymore over - probably because people finally understand that he didn't lose for causing offense per se, but for lying, and effectively defaming a group of Aborigines (he would have lost a defamation case, which would have benefited the claimants a lot more monetarily).

As for the Victorian legislation, I have no idea what it says - but on this occasion, yes its true I don't think it was wrong to charge that clown over a violent and clearly intimidatory video.

Quote:

18c is clumsily worded, but I'm not really opposed to it for the simple reason that I don't think its ever really caused actual violations of anyone's free speech - with the possible exception of holocaust deniers, but that I attribute to a very powerful lobby that is prepared to chase anyone to the ends of the earth who speaks out against the holocaust - rather than the actual legislation.

Sounds like you are having a bet each way.


Quote:

In spite of what the legislation says, judges have consistently demonstrated their unwillingness to rule against people's freedom on the mere basis of causing offense.

Except for holocaust deniers?


Quote:

I don't think anyone is even bothering to hold up Andrew Bolt as a martyr his defeat anymore over - probably because people finally understand that he didn't lose for causing offense per se, but for lying, and effectively defaming a group of Aborigines (he would have lost a defamation case, which would have benefited the claimants a lot more monetarily).

So why not get him for defamation instead? Sounds like you are defending this law because of it's infinite flexibility.


Quote:

As for the Victorian legislation, I have no idea what it says

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s25.html

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.

Penalty: imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.


Quote:

but on this occasion, yes its true I don't think it was wrong to charge that clown over a violent and clearly intimidatory video.

He was not charged with violence or intimidation.

Another one:


President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

AND so it begins... Quote: Australia's first female Muslim MP wants to change 18C race laws to include religion - so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam Australia's first female federal Muslim MP Anne Aly wants racial discrimination laws broadened so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam. The Egyptian-born politician's call comes only days after a motion was passed in Canada calling on the federal government to 'condemn Islamophobia'. While Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants to remove the words 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate' from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, Labor wants to go the opposite way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4356680/Muslim-MP-Anne-Aly-wants-Islam-insults-race-laws.html

'I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you a "dirty Arab" and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a dirty Muslim, you're not covered [under 18C],' she told The Australian.

'There's scope there. I'd like to see that discussion happen because I think we have definitely seen an increase in anti-Islamic rhetoric.'

Ms Dover is also campaigning to stop Somali-born Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali from touring Australian next month and has previously represented accused terror suspects.

Dr Aly's call to amend racial discrimination laws to include religion comes a week after Victoria's Multicultural Affairs Minister Robin Scott threatened to strengthen state laws that already curb the right to criticise religion.

'We will review Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 to consider ways to strengthen legislative protections, should the federal coalition be successful with their amendments,' he said.

Religious vilification laws potentially threaten secular values and open the door to blasphemy cases if they are legally exploited by religious groups.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

Another one: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:54pm: AND so it begins... Quote: Australia's first female Muslim MP wants to change 18C race laws to include religion - so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam Australia's first female federal Muslim MP Anne Aly wants racial discrimination laws broadened so it is illegal to insult followers of Islam. The Egyptian-born politician's call comes only days after a motion was passed in Canada calling on the federal government to 'condemn Islamophobia'. While Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants to remove the words 'insult', 'offend' and 'humiliate' from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, Labor wants to go the opposite way. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4356680/Muslim-MP-Anne-Aly-wants-Islam-insults-race-laws.html 'I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you a "dirty Arab" and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a dirty Muslim, you're not covered [under 18C],' she told The Australian. 'There's scope there. I'd like to see that discussion happen because I think we have definitely seen an increase in anti-Islamic rhetoric.' Ms Dover is also campaigning to stop Somali-born Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali from touring Australian next month and has previously represented accused terror suspects. Dr Aly's call to amend racial discrimination laws to include religion comes a week after Victoria's Multicultural Affairs Minister Robin Scott threatened to strengthen state laws that already curb the right to criticise religion. 'We will review Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 to consider ways to strengthen legislative protections, should the federal coalition be successful with their amendments,' he said. Religious vilification laws potentially threaten secular values and open the door to blasphemy cases if they are legally exploited by religious groups.

There is a Constitutional barrier on that one.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:11pm: Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech. So you think that mounting a campaign to sack someone isn't an attack on their freedom of speech? You seem to have a highly flexible attitude to freedom of speech

Quote:

By Christine Douglass-Williams on Jul 29, 2017 12:14 pm UK: Muslim radio station loses license after broadcasting calls to jihad violence Sermons by radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, aired by Iman FM during Ramadan, “amounted to a direct call to action to members of the Muslim community to prepare for and carry out violent action against non-Muslim people.” This series went on for some time, without complaints from viewers. It is revealing that this station was inciting.....

Google


I'm sure that some/many moslems [even some moslems living here in Australia] would also describe this loss of a broadcasting license, for a 'Muslim radio station' in the UK,         an attack on UK moslems freedom of speech.

Would you concur Barnacle ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:35pm: I am not dismissing her rights. If you cannot do your job, you get fired. This is not a violation of your rights, even if that job happens to involve speaking. Writing an inoffensive tweet and expressing her beliefs about sharia had nothing to do with her ability to do her job. She was intimidated into self-censoring, and her employer was eventually intimidated into terminating her employment. You know, the sort of self censorship you always cry about - when its muslims causing it.

'expressing her beliefs about sharia'


Yassmin Abdel-Magied was publicly promoting an acceptance of Sharia [and ISLAM] in Australia, deceitfully.

Deceitfully, by implying that Australians have nothing to fear from Sharia [ISLAMIC law], and that there is nothing wrong with, or nothing to be feared from Sharia [ISLAMIC law].

In that public, nation-wide promotion, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, was being deceitful.

Why so ?

Because ISLAMIC law actually encourages violence against those who do not believe as moslems believe.

And ISLAMIC law actually makes lawful, violence against those who do not believe as moslems believe.



.




Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498599842/17#17

Quote:

Moslems living in Australia.... ......are not Australians. They are moslems, who are living in Australia, who are promoting ISLAMISM in Australia.

.




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


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


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



.



"Me praying five times a day is sharia."
- Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Honest !


ISLAMIC LAW TEXT....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06



ISLAMIC LAW TEXT....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 8:40pm:

Quote: I don't think anyone is even bothering to hold up Andrew Bolt as a martyr his defeat anymore over - probably because people finally understand that he didn't lose for causing offense per se, but for lying, and effectively defaming a group of Aborigines (he would have lost a defamation case, which would have benefited the claimants a lot more monetarily). So why not get him for defamation instead? Sounds like you are defending this law because of it's infinite flexibility.

The Aborigines who took Bolt to court made it clear that for them this was a matter of principle, and that they wanted to expose Bolt's racial vilification - rather than his blatant defamation of them. Even though they knew they could have made a fortune out of Bolt if they went the defamation route.

More generally, 18c doesn't need changing on the basis of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. As I have said probably no one has had their freedom taken away by 18c, with arguably the exception of holocaust deniers. But even that point is rather moot for the simple reason that nearly everyone- and especially the very people who are advocating changing 18c - are tripping over themselves to reassure the public (or probably more accurately reassure the Israeli lobbies that back them), that holocaust denial will always remain banned whatever happens.

But aside from holocaust denial, 18c hasn't taken away anyone's freedom. Not even those ghastly freedom-hating muslims have done anything under 18c. Mostly people just sue for defamation/libel if they want to take legal action when they feel offended by what people say about them. There's also the fact that people's freedoms are largely protected by the provisions of 18d.

Quite simply, you really can't silence other people under 18c on the mere basis of feeling offended by what they say. There is enough legal precedent to prove that. But perhaps a more useful purpose of 18c is to uphold a symbol of tolerance - a message to society that it is not ok to racially insult people. And I think that is about the most powerful argument against tearing it up - that abolishing a law that doesn't actually affect people's freedoms would send the message that people have a 'right to be bigots'. I'm not sure we need that sort of message.

Quote:

More generally, 18c doesn't need changing on the basis of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. As I have said probably no one has had their freedom taken away by 18c, with arguably the exception of holocaust deniers. But even that point is rather moot for the simple reason that nearly everyone- and especially the very people who are advocating changing 18c - are tripping over themselves to reassure the public (or probably more accurately reassure the Israeli lobbies that back them), that holocaust denial will always remain banned whatever happens.

So don't fix it because it aint broke, except it is actually broken, but that's OK because it is a popular flaw? Are you having trouble finding a principle here Gandalf?

Can you predict what other ways we might loose our freedom as people actually test this law?

Is it just a coincidence that the only time you oppose these laws to deny people basic freedom is when Jews are the beneficiaries? But when it protects Islam and Muslims from criticism you are all for it?

Freedom of speech is not a right in Australia. Some of us may presume that because we live in a liberal democracy like Australia, certain personal freedoms are a given, like free speech, and that any imposition on a person’s speech would be viewed as an attempt to curtail the freedom. Additionally, we’re going to presume (for the sake of the topic of this piece) that many Australians would be familiar with the US Constitution and specifically the First Amendment which states; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”, and we’re going to also guess (again for efficacy) that some people may believe that we here in Australia also enjoy a similar type of Constitutional protection: But do we? Well… it must be said that Australia’s free speech laws are interesting to say the least.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.  It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.

The High Court in has stated that the protection of freedom of communication in the Constitution is not absolute, and that “it is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.”

Essentially Australia has 2 key elements that make up our freedom of speech: freedom of opinion and freedom of expression.

Freedom of opinion is your right to hold opinions—however different from mainstream opinion it may be—without interference. There are no exceptions or restrictions to this right.

Freedom of expression relates to any medium, including written and oral communication, the media, public protest, broadcasting, artistic works and commercial advertising. This right is not absolute, as it may be restricted in areas such as posting on the internet, the urging of violence or classification of artistic material and in relation to publishing defamatory information about someone.

Every time I see this title - I think of Spike Jones' "Dinner Music For People Who Aren't Very Hungry."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfJiv9K6E0

Raven wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 2:22am:

Freedom of speech is not a right in Australia. Some of us may presume that because we live in a liberal democracy like Australia, certain personal freedoms are a given, like free speech, and that any imposition on a person’s speech would be viewed as an attempt to curtail the freedom. Additionally, we’re going to presume (for the sake of the topic of this piece) that many Australians would be familiar with the US Constitution and specifically the First Amendment which states; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”, and we’re going to also guess (again for efficacy) that some people may believe that we here in Australia also enjoy a similar type of Constitutional protection: But do we? Well… it must be said that Australia’s free speech laws are interesting to say the least. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.  It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. The High Court in has stated that the protection of freedom of communication in the Constitution is not absolute, and that “it is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.” Essentially Australia has 2 key elements that make up our freedom of speech: freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. Freedom of opinion is your right to hold opinions—however different from mainstream opinion it may be—without interference. There are no exceptions or restrictions to this right. Freedom of expression relates to any medium, including written and oral communication, the media, public protest, broadcasting, artistic works and commercial advertising. This right is not absolute, as it may be restricted in areas such as posting on the internet, the urging of violence or classification of artistic material and in relation to publishing defamatory information about someone.

You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom. If the majority of Americans wanted to take away their own freedom, it would be inevitable. Just look at the nonsense they carry on with over the right to bear arms. They still think the constitution means something and bring it up every time the government thinks of another way to infringe that right.

Also, an Australian has been jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust. The distinction between the right to have an opinion and the right to express it is meaningless.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:07pm:

The Aborigines who took Bolt to court made it clear that for them this was a matter of principle, and that they wanted to expose Bolt's racial vilification - rather than his blatant defamation of them. Even though they knew they could have made a fortune out of Bolt if they went the defamation route. More generally, 18c doesn't need changing on the basis of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. As I have said probably no one has had their freedom taken away by 18c, with arguably the exception of holocaust deniers. But even that point is rather moot for the simple reason that nearly everyone- and especially the very people who are advocating changing 18c - are tripping over themselves to reassure the public (or probably more accurately reassure the Israeli lobbies that back them), that holocaust denial will always remain banned whatever happens. But aside from holocaust denial, 18c hasn't taken away anyone's freedom. Not even those ghastly freedom-hating muslims have done anything under 18c. Mostly people just sue for defamation/libel if they want to take legal action when they feel offended by what people say about them. There's also the fact that people's freedoms are largely protected by the provisions of 18d. Quite simply, you really can't silence other people under 18c on the mere basis of feeling offended by what they say. There is enough legal precedent to prove that. But perhaps a more useful purpose of 18c is to uphold a symbol of tolerance - a message to society that it is not ok to racially insult people. And I think that is about the most powerful argument against tearing it up - that abolishing a law that doesn't actually affect people's freedoms would send the message that people have a 'right to be bigots'. I'm not sure we need that sort of message.

There has never been 'freedom of speech in this country there is no codified right to free speech, so please refrain form using such an erroneous term.


You can say what the government allows you to say, the greater your 'victim-hood' the greater that privileged is bestowed to you and 18c reinforces that.


I never cared must for such bullsh1t and if someone is offended, so be it.

Quote:

Also, an Australian has been jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.

We've been over this a zillion times and you know that is 100% horseshit, but you keep perpetuating that blatant lie, won't you.

Quote:

There has never been 'freedom of speech in this country there is no codified right to free speech

What is codified, and what you are free to do, are not the same thing.


Aussie wrote on Aug 5^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

Quote: Also, an Australian has been jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust. We've been over this a zillion times and you know that is 100% horseshit, but you keep perpetuating that blatant lie, won't you.

You were wrong every single time Aussie, and you will continue to be wrong. Perhaps you should get a lawyer to explain it to you.

No-one needs a Lawyer to have it explained.  A five year old kid will do.  Ask one, Effendi, and you will be enlightened, well, as far as is possible in your case.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

She is turning into a Kim Kardashian,

She's growing an elephant sized ARSE ?

SURELY, no woman would do this DELIBERATELY ?

Aussie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

No-one needs a Lawyer to have it explained.  A five year old kid will do.  Ask one, Effendi, and you will be enlightened, well, as far as is possible in your case.

So five year olds' study statute law surrounding the restrictions applied to expressing an opinion at  kindy or do they wait until Grade 1?


Are they any good at interpreting the case law surrounding self defence, because that can get tricky if you have inadvertently killed your assailant? That seems to be an endless argument here as well.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 11:54pm:

So don't fix it because it aint broke, except it is actually broken, but that's OK because it is a popular flaw? Are you having trouble finding a principle here Gandalf?

Its not broken, and that is evidenced by the fact that I don't think anyone has ever had their freedoms curtailed by 18c - beyond what would have been curtailed in any defamation case. Its probably got to do with the huge disclaimer in 18d. I'd even go so far as to say its working exactly as intended.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom.

Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:54pm: So don't fix it because it aint broke, except it is actually broken, but that's OK because it is a popular flaw? Are you having trouble finding a principle here Gandalf? Its not broken, and that is evidenced by the fact that I don't think anyone has ever had their freedoms curtailed by 18c - beyond what would have been curtailed in any defamation case. Its probably got to do with the huge disclaimer in 18d. I'd even go so far as to say its working exactly as intended.

So 18C is meant to destroy the lives of people as they are dragged through the courts on trumped up accusations that were left to fester instead of being dealt with appropriately?


That alone meant it was a fkked up law used by a professional victim to screw some poor bastards out of a heap of cash.




In a decision that was seen as a litmus test for the controversial section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA), the Federal Circuit Court has dismissed Cindy Prior’s case against Queensland University of Technology students Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell. Prior had alleged that these students breached section 18C. Judge Michael Jarrett concluded that Prior’s claim against them had no reasonable prospect of success.

What was the case about?

On May 28, 2013, Wood and two other students were using a QUT computer lab when Prior asked them whether they were indigenous. They replied they weren’t. Prior then asked them to leave.

Later that day, on the “QUT Stalkerspace” Facebook page, Wood posted:

Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation…?
Many people commented. Powell posted:

I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is….
Prior alleged that Thwaites posted “ITT black people”. (A claim that Thwaites has always categorically denied.)

Prior complained to QUT about these and other comments, which were promptly removed. However, Prior was ultimately unhappy with QUT’s handling of the matter and lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC conciliated Prior’s complaint. However, it did not contact the students directly about the complaint or the conciliation conference. Instead, it left this task to QUT. Powell did not know about Prior’s complaint until after the conciliation conference.

Conciliation failed, and Prior commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against QUT, certain QUT employees, and a number of QUT students including Wood, Thwaites and Powell. Prior’s claim was for A$247,570.52. Prior alleged that the students had breached 18C. She also alleged that QUT and its employees had breached section 9 of the RDA.


http://theconversation.com/qut-discrimination-case-exposes-human-rights-commission-failings-68235

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 12:29pm: You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom. Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.

Yeah very true, I've been called a "white cvvnt" many times, but what are ya gonna do?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:54pm: So don't fix it because it aint broke, except it is actually broken, but that's OK because it is a popular flaw? Are you having trouble finding a principle here Gandalf? Its not broken, and that is evidenced by the fact that I don't think anyone has ever had their freedoms curtailed by 18c - beyond what would have been curtailed in any defamation case. Its probably got to do with the huge disclaimer in 18d. I'd even go so far as to say its working exactly as intended.

Toben was put in jail for denying the holocaust. You are back to assuming this is only about Andrew Bolt. But even there your logic falls over. The fact that he could have been charged under other legislation is not evidence that this legislation is appropriate. It is only evidence that it is, in this case, redundant.


Quote:

Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.

People speed all the time Gandalf. And they get away with it. This is not evidence that for all practical purposes we are free to drive as fast as we want despite the legislation.

Basically, your argument boils down to insisting that our rights and freedoms are not being curtailed if they only chip away a little at a time.

Wasn't it you who originally brought this to everyone's attention? Why are you now defending it? Did you only criticise it in the past because it was a Jew who was doing the suing? Have you changed your mind because you now see it as a step towards protecting Islam from criticism?

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

People speed all the time Gandalf. And they get away with it. This is not evidence that for all practical purposes we are free to drive as fast as we want despite the legislation.

It was your argument FD - that a "piece of paper" does not determine our right to free speech - only our willingness to defend it. Are you now backpeddling on that and saying, actually a piece of paper does determine our free speech?

Actually, your original statement is correct, and it is the very reason why crying over that "piece of paper" called 18c as some threat to our free speech is unwarranted. Virtually no one properly understands our vilification laws, and fewer people care. But what Australians universally do understand is that they are not prohibited from merely offending people on the basis of race. As I said, no one has been silenced under 18c - beyond what any regular defamation case would have done, and yes that probably includes Toben. Quite simply, 18c couldn't be less relevant to our actual freedoms.


freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

Wasn't it you who originally brought this to everyone's attention? Why are you now defending it? Did you only criticise it in the past because it was a Jew who was doing the suing? Have you changed your mind because you now see it as a step towards protecting Islam from criticism?

Actually I first brought it up to demonstrate how far Australian societal norms and expectations vis free speech are detached from your extreme views. Its when you were attempting to paint me as some un-Australian freedom hater. (ie, your favourite slur "typical muslim"). Whats interesting was your response - mocking the idea that 18c threatens anyone's speech, and especially articulating your scepticism that Toben himself was gaoled for denying the holocaust. Yes I know, irony overload.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

Whats interesting was your response - mocking the idea that 18c threatens anyone's speech, and especially articulating your scepticism that Toben himself was gaoled for denying the holocaust.

noooooo?  :o :o :o :o


:D :D :D

Quote:

It was your argument FD - that a "piece of paper" does not determine our right to free speech - only our willingness to defend it. Are you now backpeddling on that and saying, actually a piece of paper does determine our free speech?

Toben was put in jail Gandalf. Not sure how you managed to confuse that with "a piece of paper".


Quote:

Actually, your original statement is correct, and it is the very reason why crying over that "piece of paper" called 18c as some threat to our free speech is unwarranted. Virtually no one properly understands our vilification laws, and fewer people care. But what Australians universally do understand is that they are not prohibited from merely offending people on the basis of race. As I said, no one has been silenced under 18c - beyond what any regular defamation case would have done, and yes that probably includes Toben. Quite simply, 18c couldn't be less relevant to our actual freedoms.

So Toben's freedom of speech was not limited by putting him in jail for denying the holocaust?

36727 posts.

36727 times no one cared.

36727 that he thought his opinion mattered.

36727 that he was wrong.

36727 times he wasted valuable parts of his life, when he could have been out planting roses.

And why?

Because he confuses freedom of speech with the right to hate.

36727 times!

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:27pm:

Toben was put in jail Gandalf. Not sure how you managed to confuse that with "a piece of paper".

So you now think 'pieces of paper' are significant in determining our freedoms?

Would you agree that Toben's gaoling had less to do with that 'piece of paper', and more to do with people's unwillingness to stand up for him, and to stand up for the right to holocaust denial in general?

How do you deny a historical fact?

Maybe instead a jail, a lunatic asylum would have been a better option?

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:27pm:

So Toben's freedom of speech was not limited by putting him in jail for denying the holocaust?

Toben was gaoled for contempt of court. The point I was making was that the underlying legislation that drove that particular court order was not over and beyond what would undoubtedly have happened in any defamation case. Since I believe Toben could have successfully been sued for defaming jewish people (he labelled jews who he considered exaggerated the holocaust as fraudsters and extortionists) - in which case he would have faced the same order to take down his offending material. And if he had refused, then he would have been held in contempt - in which case you could argue with the same logic you are using now that he was having his freedom taken away for holocaust denial.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 12:29pm: You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom. Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.

FD's rules say all that too, G, but do you know?

My right to not to not be offended takes precedence over my right to be a dirty, tinted Pakistani Bastard.

Superior kulture, innit.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 9:53am: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 12:29pm: You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom. Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it. Yeah very true, I've been called a "white cvvnt" many times, but what are ya gonna do?

That was when the Balinese hotel staff called you sir, dear.

An easy mishtake to make.

Moriaty wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

36727 times he wasted valuable parts of his life, when he could have been out planting roses. And why? Because he confuses freedom of speech with the right to hate.

Freeeeedom, innit.

Its freedom when he does it, or other racists, but not ok when those who champion true liberties take a turn.

Sad. Very low energy this current version of Freediver. I remember when he was more energetic, and less racist.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:48pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:27pm: Toben was put in jail Gandalf. Not sure how you managed to confuse that with "a piece of paper". So you now think 'pieces of paper' are significant in determining our freedoms?

They can be, but only if people act on them. Like when Toben was put in jail for having the wrong opinion.

The right to bear arms in the US constitution does not stop the government infringing that right. It is only relevant to the extent that Americans use the constitution as a basis to defend the right. If they ignored it, the government would take it away overnight, despite the constitution. The constitution itself guarantees nothing, and the presence or absence of a reference to freedom of speech in the Australian constitution does not tell us whether we have it. Toben being put in jail for his opinion does tell us something. If it wasn't for you complaining about wealthy Jews using 18c against Toben I probably wouldn't be as concerned either.

Not sure why this is so complicated for you Gandalf.

Putting a reference to freedom of speech in the constitution would only help to protect our freedom to the extent that it made people value their freedom more. Some people do seem more concerned with whether we have a codified right than a real right.


Quote:

Would you agree that Toben's gaoling had less to do with that 'piece of paper', and more to do with people's unwillingness to stand up for him, and to stand up for the right to holocaust denial in general?

I doubt that protesting would have affected the judge's decision. I would find it even more troubling if it did. It obviously should affect the politics behind the law, and Toben's unpopularity no doubt contributed to the fact that 18c was barely on the public radar until more influential people got caught up in it.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 8^th, 2017 at 7:58pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:27pm: So Toben's freedom of speech was not limited by putting him in jail for denying the holocaust? Toben was gaoled for contempt of court. The point I was making was that the underlying legislation that drove that particular court order was not over and beyond what would undoubtedly have happened in any defamation case. Since I believe Toben could have successfully been sued for defaming jewish people (he labelled jews who he considered exaggerated the holocaust as fraudsters and extortionists) - in which case he would have faced the same order to take down his offending material. And if he had refused, then he would have been held in contempt - in which case you could argue with the same logic you are using now that he was having his freedom taken away for holocaust denial.

Who do you think could have sued him for defamation? What financial loss would they attribute to him?

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:27am:

Who do you think could have sued him for defamation? What financial loss would they attribute to him?

;D Oh thats right, I almost forgot you (apparently still) believe that a defamation case has to involve an actual financial loss to the plaintiff. Newsflash FD - it does not. You merely have to demonstrate your reputation has suffered because of defaming material published about you.

I could imagine it would have been quite easy for just about any jew who genuinely believed in the holocaust to demonstrate that their reputation had suffered because of Toben and his organisation labelling them as liars and con-artists. 

Whose reputation suffered because of what Toben said on the internet?


Quote:

I could imagine it would have been quite easy for just about any jew who genuinely believed in the holocaust to demonstrate that their reputation had suffered because of Toben and his organisation labelling them as liars and con-artists.

 

So Toben has legally slandered every single Jew, except the ones who don't believe the the holocaust?

And you support putting someone in jail for having the wrong opinion because of this delusion that they are guilty of something else that they have never stood trial for?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:11pm: Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech. So you think that mounting a campaign to sack someone isn't an attack on their freedom of speech? You seem to have a highly flexible attitude to freedom of speech

FD calls it Freeeeedom (TM).

I'll say it again - I thought that Freedom of speech was so that Unpopular People could get their say in.... otherwise nobody would listen...  8-)

Not quite correct - the issue is whether or not the label/libel would cause that person loss of reputation when that reputation is part of their stock in trade...

Look at Joe Hockey - Treasurer for Sale...... he won the technical victory, lost the war.....

Defamation laws have always been the last refuge of the rogues in society who quite simply can say their value in society has been diminished by negative comment, even when the comments made are true....

A 'public figure' relies on reputation.. after all - how would Bill Shorten be elected again is he was found to have sold out his Union members for thirty pieces of silver?  How would Tony Abbott be elected if it was made clear that he bashed a wall and frightened a girl at Uni?  How would John Howard walk the streets and not be in prison if it was plain knowledge that his 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'children thrown overboard' did not exist?

Dearie me - what would happen to society if the ruling class was held up to question over their every move and statement.... and every riff-raff could point the finger of truth at them??   :-/

Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 6:02pm:

So Toben has legally slandered every single Jew, except the ones who don't believe the the holocaust?

Probably.

If you look at the original Federal Court ruling, the judge made specific mention to two "insulting imputations" published by Toben - which was central to determining whether jewish people could reasonably be considered to have been insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated. They were:


Quote:

(c)      Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence; and (d)      some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1150.html?query=title(TOBEN)

Which I imagine would be a pretty open-shut case of defamation against any holocaust-believing jew that could be bothered to bring before a court.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.

In the one case in which someone has been gaoled over 18c, the judge went out of her way to find actual instances of slander. I think this is interesting, and significant.

So that gives 2 precedents (including the Bolt case), in which the court has ordered the defendant to remove published material that specifically defamed people on the basis of race. I don't know of any other case that breaks this mould.

The point here is, no one has been gaoled or ordered to be silenced for making academic arguments about holocaust denial. The evidence as I see it, tells me that mere denial of the holocaust cannot be deemed to be a violation of 18c - despite what Brandis said a couple of years ago. To be a violation, I would need to literally slander people along racial grounds (eg jews) - according to the two precedents that we have.

Is that a case for removing 18c on the basis of it being redundant? Quite possible - though I reiterate my previous point about 18c reinforcing desirable cultural norms (and which incidentally is basically the argument everyone else who defends it uses). But irrespective of that, any notion that 18c is a recipe for some dangerous slippery slope vis having our freedoms taken away from us is clearly unfounded. The law has been in place for over 40 years, and to my knowledge it has not caused anyone to have their freedom of speech removed over and beyond what any defamation case would have done. 

Control free speech, & you control the minds of those you disagree with.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 4:41pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:01pm: Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust. In the one case in which someone has been gaoled over 18c, the judge went out of her way to find actual instances of slander. I think this is interesting, and significant.

Sounds to me like the judge also has a principled objection to 18c.

Was Toben actually found guilty of slander?


Quote:

So that gives 2 precedents (including the Bolt case), in which the court has ordered the defendant to remove published material that specifically defamed people on the basis of race. I don't know of any other case that breaks this mould.

Are you suggesting that 18c would not be enforced in the absence of a violation of some other law? Or is this just a limp wristed way of supporting a law you know to be wrong?


Quote:

The point here is, no one has been gaoled or ordered to be silenced for making academic arguments about holocaust denial.

Are you saying it is not a restriction on free speech if people are only jailed for making "non-academic" arguments?


Quote:

The evidence as I see it, tells me that mere denial of the holocaust cannot be deemed to be a violation of 18c - despite what Brandis said a couple of years ago. To be a violation, I would need to literally slander people along racial grounds (eg jews) - according to the two precedents that we have.

Toben was not found guilty of slander. The verdict actually proves this. You claim that the people who went after Bolt and Toben did so to prove a point, but the point seems to have eluded you. The slander allegations have not been tested in court. The point they proved is that holocaust denial, and whatever Bolt was found guilty for, is by itself illegal.


Quote:

Is that a case for removing 18c on the basis of it being redundant?

You miss the point Gandalf. They did not prove that it is the same as slander. The guilty verdicts prove that it is a separate crime.


Quote:

Quite possible - though I reiterate my previous point about 18c reinforcing desirable cultural norms (and which incidentally is basically the argument everyone else who defends it uses).

Is this a limp wristed excuse for denying people freedom of speech? Do you actually think people should be put in jail for not conforming to "desirable cultural norms"? What other norms would you have the government impose on people?


Quote:

But irrespective of that, any notion that 18c is a recipe for some dangerous slippery slope vis having our freedoms taken away from us is clearly unfounded. The law has been in place for over 40 years, and to my knowledge it has not caused anyone to have their freedom of speech removed over and beyond what any defamation case would have done.

 

Yes it has. Toben was ordered to cease denying the holocaust. No slader verdict would have restricted his freedom of speech in this manner. You acknowledge but at the same time miss the point of convicting him under 18c rather than slander legislation. It was to prove that holocaust denial is by itself illegal.

Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists. Gandalf is yet to decide whether such criticism should be banned, but does support bans in towns that are considering building a mosque or are having a broader discussion about Islam.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1500804531/211#211

Quote:

Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists.

Is that an offence, Effendi?

Apparently. But it's the intention that matters, and the context, not what you actually do.

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists.

They weren't FD, as you're well aware I don't doubt.  They were found guilty of making a video mocking Muslims.   There is a difference.    ::)

Quote:

There is a difference.

Even if the terrorists they are mocking happen to be Muslims? Are we only allowed to make fun of generic, unidentifiable terrorists now?

Brian do you have the right to criticise other nations and religions? How about the ability to do so?

has anyone seen the videos mocking the Pope or Catholics... ;D ;D....sheez these muslims are a touchy lot are they not.?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

Quote: There is a difference. Even if the terrorists they are mocking happen to be Muslims? Are we only allowed to make fun of generic, unidentifiable terrorists now?

Frivolous as usual.   How typical FD.   They were mocking Muslims as a whole.   ::)

And you think that should be illegal?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Apparently. But it's the intention that matters, and the context, not what you actually do.

Can you refer me to the section of the Act which makes it an offence specifically to make a video mocking terrorists, Effendi?

You said:


Quote:

Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists.

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:

And you think that should be illegal?

Depends on context, FD.  Time to mature up, instead of subscribing to black and white thinking...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:10pm: Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists. They weren't FD, as you're well aware I don't doubt.  They were found guilty of making a video mocking Muslims.   There is a difference.    ::)

What is it?


Is every muslim a potential headhacker? That is the only way in which this mocking was of every muslim, not just the crazies.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 9:34pm: And you think that should be illegal? Depends on context, FD.  Time to mature up, instead of subscribing to black and white thinking...   ::)

How does it depend on context? Must we refrain from mocking terrorists if there is public discussion about building a mosque? Or do you only support the law when Muslims are being protected?

Do you have the right or ability to criticise other religions and other countries?

Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People

no such thing as freedom of speech. For anyone.

Frank wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 10:07pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:10pm: Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists. They weren't FD, as you're well aware I don't doubt.  They were found guilty of making a video mocking Muslims.   There is a difference.    ::) What is it? Is every muslim a potential headhacker? That is the only way in which this mocking was of every muslim, not just the crazies.

Tell me, Soren, is every Christian to be fed to the lions?    ::)

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:01pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 9:34pm: And you think that should be illegal? Depends on context, FD.  Time to mature up, instead of subscribing to black and white thinking...   ::) How does it depend on context? Must we refrain from mocking terrorists if there is public discussion about building a mosque? Or do you only support the law when Muslims are being protected? Do you have the right or ability to criticise other religions and other countries?

I support the law because it protects everyone, FD.   You only mock the law when it protects Muslims for some strange, unfathomable, Islamophobic reason...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 10:29pm: Quote: There is a difference. Even if the terrorists they are mocking happen to be Muslims? Are we only allowed to make fun of generic, unidentifiable terrorists now? Frivolous as usual.   How typical FD.   They were mocking Muslims as a whole.   ::)

So.


Piss christ mocked christians and they were told shut the fkk up and enjoy the free speech.


The difference is, we know those potential terrorist won't shut the fkkk up and you're terrified of their insanity, so you kow tow to their religion like a good little lap dog.

---

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:01pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 9:34pm: And you think that should be illegal? Depends on context, FD.  Time to mature up, instead of subscribing to black and white thinking...   ::) How does it depend on context? Must we refrain from mocking terrorists if there is public discussion about building a mosque? Or do you only support the law when Muslims are being protected? Do you have the right or ability to criticise other religions and other countries? I support the law because it protects everyone, FD.   You only mock the law when it protects Muslims for some strange, unfathomable, Islamophobic reason...   ::)

Protects them from what? Mockery of their beliefs?

Do you have the right or ability to criticise other religions and other countries?

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:10pm: Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists. They weren't FD, as you're well aware I don't doubt.  They were found guilty of making a video mocking Muslims.   There is a difference.    ::)

But its so funny.

Muzzos are asking to be mocked

Tents for their "women"
Stooopit dresses for the men.
Retarded because of all the inbreeding
Worshipping a sociopathic, self confessed pedophile, retarded, deformed and stoopid prophet muhummed.

It just begs for laughter and mocking.
Honestly, the way they go on, its a comedy in the making.

And the really sad part
They take it all seriously..........idioots

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:01pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 9:34pm: And you think that should be illegal? Depends on context, FD.  Time to mature up, instead of subscribing to black and white thinking...   ::) How does it depend on context? Must we refrain from mocking terrorists if there is public discussion about building a mosque? Or do you only support the law when Muslims are being protected? Do you have the right or ability to criticise other religions and other countries? I support the law because it protects everyone, FD.   You only mock the law when it protects Muslims for some strange, unfathomable, Islamophobic reason...   ::)

You are equating Muslims with allahu akhbaring head hackers, Brian.  DO all Muslims identify with allahu akhbaring head hackers? You know so many Muslims, do they identify so?


On another level - why can't Islam and those who believe it be mocked? What's special about Islam? The lie that criticising Islam is racist?  Vast numbers of Christians are not white. Is criticising Christianity also 'racist'? Is criticising any non-whites for anything - is that racist?

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 9^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 9th, 2017 at 3:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 10:07pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:10pm: Cottrel and his associates have been found guilty of making a video mocking terrorists. They weren't FD, as you're well aware I don't doubt.  They were found guilty of making a video mocking Muslims.   There is a difference.    ::) What is it? Is every muslim a potential headhacker? That is the only way in which this mocking was of every muslim, not just the crazies. Tell me, Soren, is every Christian to be fed to the lions?    ::)

Are the Muslims still doing that??? Didn't know.