<< THEY JUST KEEP GETTING CRAZIER ~ MAIN ~ GLOBEY CATASTROPHES >>
TOTAL CRITICISM BAN
Well, here’s a bold legal gambit:
It is impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable, the Victorian Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
“If one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief,” Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.
Mr Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
For an earlier item on this stupid case—click.
(Via Iain C., who emails: “Does that mean President Bush, who has outed Islamofascism, would be subject to an arrest warrant if he landed in Victoria?”)
UPDATE. 2dogs comments:
[Victorian Liberal leader] Ted Bailleiu needs to come and say that he is going to get rid of these laws if elected later this year. So far we’ve heard nothing from him on this issue.
Walterplinge replies:
And you won’t. Bailleiu is proving to be a greeny loser. He’ll support Victoria’s awful human rights legislation - count on it.
A couple of weeks back I went to a fund raising breakfast for the new local Liberal candidate at which Bailleiu was the main speaker. His ability to not answer a question was remarkable - and these by and large were Dorothy Dixers asked by the party faithful. A pathetic performance.
Well, I guess if there’s no intellectual distinction between Muslims and Islam, that means that each Muslim is personally responsible for everything that another another Muslim claims to be doing in the name of Islam? I guess that’s one way to kill off the “moderate Muslim” meme…wish we had come up with that one!
Funny they come out with all encompassing Muslim/Islam inseperable crap, and yet you have multiple bunches of sunni muslims killing shi’ite muslims (and vice versa) hand over fist becoz they are so-called heretics and apostates and all the rest…
The two groups have obviously been slagging each other off for hundreds of years and if its so intolerable and punishable for anyone to merely raise a few questions about Islam, what do all these mussie fanatics think old Allah is gonna say when they kick the bucket and have to answer for what they have been doing to each other…
If they are murdering and torturing each other left, right and centre over semantics, I wonder why anyone here should be jailed for raising one or two questions about the belief system as a whole??? Maybe as usual these bunch of mussies would do better to worry about removing the telegraph pole from their own eyes, before lecturing us and getting a court rulings about our supposed splinter???
Inaugural broadcast of Ep#1 Metropolis Now - debate - “Is Islam a Special case?”
This will be Broadcast on TVS in Sydney I wonder what Bullshit will be fed to us tonight.
Please find below a Press Release statement for the broadcast of the debate “Is Islam a Special Case?” as the first episode of a new news and views program, called “Metropolis Now”, to be broadcast on TVS, on the following dates:> Metropolis Now Ep #1 can be viewed on TVS on Tuesday 22nd August at 9.00pm Thursday 24th August at 1.00am Thursday 24th August at 12.30pm Sunday 27th August at 2.30pmISLAMIC FORUM ON TVS HAS ACADEMICS TALKING Academic Experts Have Their Say on Today¹s Most Relevant Global Issue
TVS will screen a fascinating intellectual forum examining some of the world¹s recent controversial issues in Metropolis Now-Is Islam a Special Case?
This episode of Metropolis Now is a joint ETC production by The University of Western Sydney and University of New South Wales, that examines the social and cultural issues arising from the current global tensions in the West.
Is Islam a Special Case? is the first episode of a series of timely current affairs to be aired on TVS that deals with the news and views of today¹s global society.
University academics from leading Australian, American and British universities form a panel which discuss religion and multicultural citizenship, and debates whether or not Islam should be treated separately from other religions. This panel discussion was part of a larger Sydney international conference in 2005 exploring issues of citizenship and culture
Director and organiser of the discussion, Dr Geoffrey Brahm Levey, says:“Whether Islam and Muslims can successfully integrate into Australia and other liberal democracies is a question frequently asked in public debate today².
³Metropolis Now brings together Australian and international experts who illuminate the issues from a variety of perspectives in a format rarely seen on Australian television² he continues.
Metropolis Now can be viewed on TVS on
Tuesday 22nd August at 9.00pm
Thursday 24th August at 1.00am
Thursday 24th August at 12.30pm
Sunday 27th August at 2.30pmThe ludicrousness of this case is summed up in a small incident from the original hearings.
Debbie Mortimer, for the complainants, got the judge to stop Daniel Scot (a former Muslim, by the way) from reading verses of the Koran in court because to do that would vilify Muslims.
Of course, most of the offending seminar Scot gave (to a closed group of Christians that was infiltrated by the Islamc Council of VIctoria) consisted of his reading verses from the Koran to back up his assertions that it urges the faithful to kill the unbeliever in order to expand the House of Islam, to lie (taqqiya) if need be to promote Islam, that women are relegated to chattel status, that homosexuals are to be killed, etc etc.
It is beyond dispute that the Koran says all this. Sadly for those who managed to silence Scot, the same verses can be read by anyone who picks up a Koran and are quoted by many trenchant critics of Islam and Islamism including Ibn Warraq, and the heroic Wafa Sultan.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 08 22 at 04:31 AM • permalinkStuff Islam, what is the punishment for vilifying this obscene law.
Posted by Chris Harper on 2006 08 22 at 04:45 AM • permalink#12 spyder, your statement is truer than you know:
Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, is worried about “the public’s lack of faith in politicians.” Yet the same Orback said during a radio debate that: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” It sounded almost too crazy even for Sweden that a minister could say something like this in public, so I checked with several independent sources, and apparently, he really did say this.
[source: Gates of Vienna blogspot].
A quote from Winnie that sums up what is wrong with the states today.
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
Winston ChurchillThe man was a god! More prosecution for new “crimes” and a lack of spine in enforcing the existing ones is at the nub of the nanny state.
I propose that no new law can be introduced without an existing one being repealed, then work on removing one per session of Parliament for the next 10 years.
the way to a more orderly society is less laws and regulations, but more prosecution of those that remain.
/soapbox…Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 08 22 at 05:03 AM • permalinkThere is an even bigger problem looming:
Justice Nettle: “Are you saying it’s impossible to incite hatred against a religion without also inciting hatred against people who hold it?”
Seems like Justice Nettle is already taking sides - the pastors are obviously guilty of inciting hatred again a religion, Nettle is simply trying to establish whether they were also vilifying believers.
Does anyone know if Nettle is one of the pseudo-legal pantywaist judges that Labor governments regularly put into the judiciary? I fear that this case may already be decided.#17 daza you’ve just made me feel very ill.
I know we’re not in the same situation as Sweden, but I wish they’d stop Muslim immigration and let us have a debate about whether we want the fabric of our society to change to accommodate them, which will be necessary. We should be given a choice, a say, before it’s not debatable.
#16 Spyder. I don’t know, but I’d like to see if something could be done as well. We could probably start by finding out who the hell the Liberal and other candidates (not Labor - they’re a waste of time) are in our electorates and write to tell them what we think of the law and ask what their stance is. This isn’t much, but it might begin to get it through their thick skulls that people really don’t like it. Other than that I’m not sure what individuals can do. If there’s anyone here in the media (other than Tim) or who knows how to get the media to pay serious attention then maybe they can give those of us who haven’t much background in political activism some ideas.
#14 2Dogs - have we heard much of anything from Bailleiu?
But the far Left have held protests defending the right of people who were arrested for what they believed
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 08 22 at 06:55 AM • permalinkSpyder, I think you’ll find that the Libs are all over the shop, so don’t have much of a game plan. I have heard mutterings of disaffected Lib voters going Family First, but nothing definite.
I did email Doyle a while back about it, and got sniffy response from his assistant Ed Carew which didn’t really address my enquiry (about repealing the R&RT; Act). When I question his not answering the question, I got pointed to the website with the admonition to read up there, and then write to the relevant minister. With a cc to him.
I’ve not had the time to follow that up, and all it did was piss me off.
Libs in this state are a joke, and with Ted being called Red Ted, it’s not looking good for the election.
Liberal For Free Speech are following this, too.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 08 22 at 07:00 AM • permalinkThe Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
What a stupid law. There are just too many people who are eminently worthy of contempt. Without them this blog would cease to exist.
Are we all to be locked up for ridiculing the moonbats?
The law is tying itself in knots at the behest of muslim nutters so they can use it as a weapon against us, but the law in accomodating itself to the muslims will only put itself out of business, because everyone will see it for the one sided charade it is, once respect for the law dies civilisation wont be far behind, islam poisons and corrodes everything it comes into contact with, you only have to look at their own crummy societys to see just how toxic it is.
Ted Bailleiu needs to come and say that he is going to get rid of these laws if elected later this year. So far we’ve heard nothing from him on this issue.
And you won’t. Bailleiu is proving to be a greeny loser. He’ll support Victoria’s awful human rights legislation - count on it.
A couple of weeks back I went to a fund raising breakfast for the new local Liberal candidate at which Bailleiu was the main speaker. His ability to not answer a question was remarkable - and these by and large were Dorothy Dixers asked by the party faithful. A pathetic performance.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 08 22 at 07:19 AM • permalinkThere is an obvious difference between holding up to ridicule and inciting hatred. The Christian pastors were ridiculing. We do it all the time here. It’s as easy as reading out loud, which is what they did. Islam’s most visible exponents take the prize for inciting hatred.
“..some Christians vowed to make it an issue at the state election.”
It needs to be an issue at every election until we are rid of these politically correct Labor governments who betray the people by these laws.Not to worry. There is balance here. Christians and Jews may not say one word of criticism of the Muslims creed of torture and murder without falling under the crushing weight of the law, but that is balanced by the fact that Muslims can vilify Christians and Jews in the most barbaric and vicious terms and the law will reward them by refusing to prosecute their most blatant crimes of violence.
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
So, mimes have a good basis for a class-action suit?
Really, if this is the way the law reads, then “the law is an ass!”. Should, for example, Osama Ben Ladin not be subjected to “serious contempt” and “revulsion”? This whole “respectful speech” business, which is the law in some places, and official policy in many others (e.g., some U.S. university campuses) is little more than affirmative action for people who feel threatened by free speech.
phillip #31: Exactly.
It’s been pretty clear for some time that our institutions are being gamed and hijacked by one group and turned into a tool for intimidating and silencing its critics.
It’s a game any group can play—especially when it is backed by the implied threat of violence.
It seems that in any dispute with the West, its antagonists know the drill: howl with faux outrage and indignation, demand prostration in the form of apologies or compensation, and hint that consequences may result if demands are not met.
Our flaccid elites—far more interested in being liked and avoiding media censure than in doing the right thing—will fall for it every single time.
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. 5:51
We have put enmity and hatred among [the Jews] till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers. 5:64
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
...O you who believe! most surely many of the rabbis and the preists eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement…. [9:30-34]
Someone please sue the publishers of the Koran for printing hate speech.Posted by Jimmy the Dhimmi on 2006 08 22 at 09:05 AM • permalink#37 This guy on a winged horse with the head of a woman just flew past my window.
Might just be the whiskey, of course.
Posted by TheRealBigAl on 2006 08 22 at 09:05 AM • permalinkPoisonous SBS news tonight amid the stories doing the rounds of refugees (grateful Aussies to be)from the C’wealth Games Sierra Leone Athletics team and descriptions of genital mutilation of girls-managed to locate a SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER in America who was being fired for “being a woman,putting herself above men,teaching males” etc.“Women should be SEEN and not HEARD.”
When I heard the promo I guessed that it would be a story from the U.S. cause where ELSE would SBS put to air a story from about discrimination against women.
Not from any third world country,not from African countries,not from Muslim countries.
Certainly not from Aboriginal Australia -self determination is so much more important to the left than mere women.
Her being from an Evangelical Church made it all the more a juicy target for the Multiculti Media.
When I think of ALL the sad and despicable stories of cruelty to women that sbs has IGNORED,SUPPRESSED,OMITTED,DOWNPLAYED -BETRAYED….Jimmi, you missed one:
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…’
can we deport them now?, I know I keep asking, but I live in hope.
#45. True, but remember, you quoted Mohammad’s words while I was quoting God Himself.
Someone should tell the Islamic Council of Victoria that God is an asshole, and should be tried under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
Posted by Jimmy the Dhimmi on 2006 08 22 at 09:43 AM • permalinkMurph - you must be only a little way down the river from QMC (now QM&W I believe) between Stephney Green and Mile End where I spent seven wonderful years twenty odd years ago
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 08 22 at 10:24 AM • permalinkWell they understand the basic legal argument at the Darlington Madrassa, I mean the Camperdown Re-education Gulag, I mean Sydney University where they just attack the Jew for being - well Jewish. And I suppose painting ‘Kill Jews’ all over the place isn’t really inciting violence. No its just installation art. Nor apparently is the peace protest that chants death to Israel. No they are just supporting the resistance. No the only possible victim of vilification is Islam. And what worse way to vilify each and every Muslims than by reading the Koran! How weak is this case?
Posted by platey mates on 2006 08 22 at 10:40 AM • permalinkWhere is Rob Starry who defended Jihad Jack Thomas? Yesterday he claimed his victory was essential to stop Australia from becoming a police state. Now we have people who are being prosecuted for real thought crimes, for reading a book aloud, and where is Rob Starry? On friday he will be speaking at the Broadway Madrassa, I mean the Central Re-education Gulag, I mean the University of Technology Sydney with Keysar Trad and some Arab Student leader on the erosion of our human rights. I guess it hasn’t dawned on Rob Starry that the only person in the whole Jack Thomas fiasco who supports a police state was his client, Jihad Jack Thomas, who fought to defend the Taliban police state. I guess Rob failed common sense and the bleeding obvious 101 at the Carlton Re-education Gulag or wherever he went to obtain his credentials.
Posted by platey mates on 2006 08 22 at 10:50 AM • permalinkNot to equate the two, but substitute “Thugee” for “Islam”, and “Thugs” for “Muslims”, and you see the problem with the Act:
It is impossible to vilify Thugee without also vilifying Thugs, because the two are indistinguishable, the Victorian Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
“If one vilifies Thugee, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief,” Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.
...
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.Ergo, no one may speak against the Thugs without violating the law.
In practice this sort of law is always selectively enforced with certain groups enjoying legal protection from criticism. Otherwise the Quran itself would need to be banned because it incites hatred against non-Muslims - especially polytheists.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 08 22 at 11:42 AM • permalinkNot to equate the two, but substitute “Thugee“ for “Islam”, and “Thugs” for “Muslims”, and you see the problem with the Act:
Why not equate the two?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 08 22 at 01:17 PM • permalink#32 I want to vote against this legislation, who do you recommend? I’d consider these guys, but they don’t have a candidate yet.
What’s the problem? Christians, Jews and others cannot criticise Islam, and Muslims can’t criticise Islam. Isn’t that fair?
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 08 22 at 04:55 PM • permalinkI hereby villify Islam. Islam, you suck. I encourage all Australians to experience severe contempt for Islam.
Islam, consider yourself vilified.
Does this mean I can’t ever visit Australia now without getting arrested?
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 08 22 at 07:35 PM • permalink# 41 “Someone please sue the publishers of the Koran for printing hate speech.”
Go here:
http://tinyurl.com/qv7xw
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
From the story:
And that’s the problem…
—Nora