He may be unpleasant to some, some of what he says is bull but the only challenge and evil are in the ongoing attempts of "Progressives" to suppress speech. We have just seen in Roxon, a Minister of the Crown, try to do what Elizabeth I would not "I would not open windows into men's souls".

Maybe the Enlightenment was a mistake and there should be a new suitably staffed inquisition, ex-officio including "Journos" of the ABC / Fairfax axis, Uni Profs (..... Studies, Sociology) plus selected like (correct) minded.

They could send those who need help to a suitable institution, maybe Macquarie Island where we already have some Government accommodation?

>>Without a Bill of Rights, free speech is not a right in Australia. It is implied in the Australian Constitution but laws determine speech only to be free if it does not incite, harm or offend.>>

LOL

If there really is a right not to be offended you may have to shut up shop Graham. There are certain topics that bring out "offenders" in droves.

...What this article fails to address is the outcome of contracting free speech, when the worm turns as it will and must, these constricting laws designed to stifle protest to the multicultural march, will be used against "multiculturalists" to silence their nonsense! Sooner the better!

It's a false dichotomy to claim this is an issue between Islam and white supremacists. In reality, it's an argument between liberal democracy and a political theocracy. The 'white supremacist' angle is to merely paint anyone who criticizes Islam as some kind of fascist.

The problem is real. If Muslim demographics reach near or over 50% in any European country, then it's a given that that country will start to look like the countries of the Middle East. This is simple concept to grasp. If you fill a country with people who have ideas grounded in a political theology, then the country will reflect that.

The left's position on this issue is ludicrous. While they claim to be 'fighting oppression' everywhere, they inadvertently end up making friends with the most ghastly of people. Gay rights under Islam? Ha! Women's rights under Islam? Ha!

I think it is a bit early to declare victory.

One of the most obnoxious elements of the proposed new legislation is the burden of proof. The burden is on the accused to prove their innocence!

Our parliament peddles hatred in the community every time they break refugee laws to pander to the haters.

They are no different to this idiot.

Ok, let's put a bit of pressure on the "White Supremacist" angle to this story.
Jo you have lifted your facts straight from one of the laziest journalistic staff on this continent and added your own embellishments, which only compound the errors.
The name of the podcast is "Australia Calling" not "Radio Free Australia", the name of the person behind those recordings is Carl Thompson, the membership list of his "movement" is as follows...
Carl Thompson...the end.
Even among the clutch of racist Loons dwelling on Stormfront and VNN Thompson is a pariah but for the record what he is actually advocating is definitely NOT support for Wilders or the Q Society whom he labels "Jew Stooges". What he and the moderator of the Stormfront Downunder forum are urging is that "Aussies" should take this as an opportunity to ambush the Trotskyites, Anarchists and Islamists who (they assume) will gather to oppose Wilders.
The propaganda put about by these cretins has changed somewhat since the protests in Sydney last year, instead of attacking Muslims directly al la Cronulla (too dangerous) they advocate violence against "Reds" who one would assume are less likely to track them down and beat the snot out of them. In fact these "supremacists" are thought to number less than a dozen nation wide, at most they can put a handful of people on the street in Melbourne and Sydney at a time.
Jo the correct information on this issue is available in the public domain, if Fairfax prints something triple check it before using their information, if they're not lying outright they're to lazy to check any facts and will print whatever seems about right to their claret addled minds.

Thank you, Aristocrat. It's difficult for the Left to understand to what degree Salafist versions of Islamism are not only anti-American, but also reactionary, backward, medieval - perhaps one could say 'anti-american for all the wrong reasons' - anti-Enlightenment (hence their hatred and fear of 'wesern' science and programs like the polio-vaccination programs in Pakistan), anti-equal rights for out-groups such as non-believers, gays, and women.

The Left would do well to re-consider their lazy knee-jerk reaction to 'Americanism' if they don't want to find themselves on the wrong side of history, by regressing from the imperfections of the Enlightenment and suppoting its most troglodyte of enemies. No, not all Muslims, but certainly the Salafists and Khilafists, i.e. those seeking to impose a Muslim Caliphate over the entire world.

After all, imagine some ultra-right Catholic mob, Opus Dei or some such, secretly planning to impose their brand of Catholicism over the entire world - would you call THAT 'progressive', 'Left' ? of course not.

[Christ, now I'm in trouble.]

For all that, there needs to be a fine line drawn between the right to offend, and the 'right' to incite hatred and violence. Up to that point, even deliberately offending may be within the bounds of free speech, or at least ought to be. But maybe that's where the line needs to be drawn: no right to incite hatred or violence (that may go against much of the street tactics of some Islamist groups).

Most of us can take a bit of deliberate offence - after all, one of our favorite epithets involves an invitzation to perform an act of self-effacement. What would life be like if we couldn't tell someone to 'be' off ? The point is, of course, that we don't actually mean to incite painful and perhaps impossible actions, merely to deliberately offend; deliberate offence without incitement to violence. Although it comes pretty close :)

Cheers,

Joe

The opponents of free speach know that most of what Mr Wilders says is agreed by the vast majority of Aussies. The left hate for the truth to be told uncovering the mass destruction and hatred their multi culturalism has caused to everyday people in the West.

Runner,
Incorrect, Wilders and the Q Society don't represent the views of Australians at all they are an element of the global "Counter Jihad" society whose principal idealogues are David Horowitz, Robert Spencer,Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller. The "Counter Jihad" is unabashedly pro Zionist in outlook, it merely co opts social issues and "conservative" or Christian Zionist sympathy in Western countries to drum up support for Israel. Make no mistake, Wilders is a follower, not a leader and he has his counterparts, so called "useful idiots" in the U.K, the U.S and other mainland European countries, the people arrayed under this banner range from relatively harmless people like the Q Society to the E.D.L and the ultimate Counter Jihad fanboy Anders Behring Breivik. The first incarnation of this group in Australia was centered on the post 9-11 Australian Protectionist Party, led by Sydney man Darrin Hodges, when he and his cronies proved incompetent he was gradually replaced by activists sent from the U.K.
In 2009-10 there was a failed attempt by another British activist named Martin Brennan to set up an EDL clone in Melbourne, the Australian Defence League, the group made two appearances in public, were unceremoniously driven off Fed square by Anti Fascists and folded when Brennan was deported for overstaying his visa. A similar attempt was made in Brisbane but failed miserably, the Q Society is the latest incarnation of the Counter Jihad and because of it's low profile and "grown up" appearance it's gained a bit more of a following. When a group such as the E.D.L flies the Israeli flag alongside it's own national emblem you can pretty much get the gist of their activism without going too deeply into their philosophical musings.

If I thought this new legislation would be applied equitably - no worries. Instead, notice how "offence" can only be taken if the Offended One is a member of a "minority group" of "oppressed" and/or "culturally diverse" types?

Did anyone else find the rants of that fine specimen of indigenous manhood, Anthony Mundine, towards his recent sporting opponent, Daniel Geale regarding Geales indigenous background offensive? Racism most disgusting and embarrassing given Mundine has much more Caucasian make up than Aboriginal. His mother is Caucasian and his father mixed race. Yet where was the outcry from the PC brigade?

If Andrew Bolt can find himself in hot water for questioning the "Aboriginality" of some very pale activists why isn't Anthony Mundine being likewise pursued?

As for free speech - we should be able to make statements of any sort as long as there is truth in it. The truth seems to have been forgotten when it comes to this whole debate along with common sense.

Divine MSN.
I've pointed this out many times on this forum, the anti discrimination laws are not intended to apply to all Australians, this is why any further restrictions should and do make White Australians anxious.
Realistically this is just good old English colonial ethno politics, the Anglo upper class and Bourgeoisie give special rights, privileges and protections to ethnic minorities over and above those available to the majority population, the native Whites. This is simple Anglo colonialism based on the time tested strategy of divide and conquer, it's happening all over the English speaking world, we might as well just call the upper castes of our societies "The British".

Hi Jay,

On my planet, during colonial times, subject people not only didn't have any special rights over those of the lumpen white population in their districts, but couldn't vote, couldn't get a decent education, often were required to do forced labor, or corvee, and in some colonial countries, e.g. the Congo, could be executed for speaking the master-language. In the West Indies, under slavery (have you heard of that ?), missionaries were jailed for trying to teach slaves to read and write.

But on your planet, it is all so different. I wonder where it is in the universe exactly ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
Read the post again.
The way colonialism has always worked is that the colonist plays on tribal or ethnic rivalries, he favours the minority or those with a grievance against the majority with special status, wealth and land then uses them to terrorise and subjugate the majority.
Your version of reality is based on the ideology of non white victimhood and the Noble Savage, mine is based on reality, the version of history where Hector Munro with his eight hundred British and ten thousand Brahmins and Rajputs routed a forty thousand strong Mughal Army.

Every Anglo Lone Ranger has his Tonto ;)

We're drifting here, back to topic.
Anyone ever heard of Paul Fromm, Tomislav Sunic, Jared Taylor or Andrew Yeoman?
Those four gentlemen are pro White activists, even White Nationalists they've all visited Australia and given lectures on White issues and political activism in the last few years, yet the media ignored them. They were not troubled by immigration, nobody threatened to picket or disrupt their meetings and the media made no mention whatsoever of their presence in the country.
So why the hoopla over Geert Wilders?
It's perfectly obvious that the "establishment" approve of Wilders, the Q Society and the broader "Counter Jihad" society and are comfortable with the level of publicity he is receiving because from their point of view it's constructive on some level.
The men named above hold and promote views which are the antithesis of those held by the "establishment", so they are ignored and denied the free publicity given to Wilders.
The White Nationalists gave their talks at private rooms in suburban clubs and pubs or private homes, the last time Robert Spencer addressed a meeting of the Counter Jihad faithful down here he was working in a banquet room at the Hotel Mercure so we can assume that Wilders will appear at a similar class of venue....now really, to a reasonable, adult mind does the outrage over Wilders come from genuine concern for public safety or does it smack of a publicity stunt?

Jo, according to your account, if Wilders is allowed to come he is likely to attempt to explain his view that an un-assimilated Islamic population means 'an end of free societies with less individual freedoms'.
Although I suspect he is probably wrong about that, I would like to think that we still live in an open society where the government allows citizens to hear the full range of views about such matters and to make up their own minds.

Hi Winton,

Thanks for that. As it happens, I hold my nose and support Wilders coming to Australia and speaking. As long as he keeps away from 'race', and focusses on the dangers of granting different religious groups or 'cultural' groups special rights to, as it were, extract some of their populations, i.e. women, from the provisions and protections of Australian law, and as long as he promotes the rights of all Australians without fear or favor, Enlightenment values one could say, I'm happy.

As we are seeing now in Egypt, Tunisia, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the struggle of women for equality is going to be long and very bitter. There are such things as evil cultural practices - no, not all 'cultures' are equal - and I certainly would not support their practice in Australia.

Sometimes I suspect that 'culture' is little more than the justification for a social and historical status quo, which inevitably has favored men. In that sense, genuine revolutions overthrow culture, and usually long after their use-by date.

So I also suspect that revolutions in the foreseeable future are going to have women in their front ranks. What will progressive men do - that is the question. Western feminists may well be irrelevant in all of this.

Cheers,

Joe

I would welcome Geert's opinion if he has genuine concerns about Muslims and Islam; but if u care to do a little research u will know that he is a Hasbarat i.e. a propaganda operative for the zionist propaganda machine run by the Israelis who are currently running a campaign of hate against Islam because they believe Muslims got inspired by Islam to raise up their voice against zionist atrocities inflicted on the Palestinians. Hence his opinion is worthless and I believe those Aussies professing to be patriotic are nuts because on one hand they resent the zionist control of western world whilst on the other they r supporting a Hasbarat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLs6C2hYC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MgSUnq7_5Y

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/12/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/