The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fear drives a bid for censorship > Comments

Fear drives a bid for censorship : Comments

By Tony Coady, published 25/6/2007

Australian governments are making a misguided attempt to censor discussion of terrorism.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
In my view if we continue to allow hate literature weíll have to do away with Harmony Day.

We live in a democracy which didnít happen by chance. That democracy may have to be maintained by making unpopular decisions from time to time. What is more of an interest is the fact that we need to introduce a degree of censorship. Why? Letís work backwards and see if we can find the problem and bring about a thoroughgoing change which will prevent the need for a degree of censorship in the future. The need for censorship is a result of immigration. Which immigrant group has caused this action: Chinese? Spanish?Lithuanian?Tongan? Pitcairn Islanders? South Americans? or perhaps people from the Middle East?

The tocsin has been sounded and Iím sure that one day our leaders will hear it.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:26:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What fear is that? That writings arguing the terrorist case may enter our world , to be analysed?
That we might be tempted to take the issues to law and have them tested?
Our A/G could do so since we are party to the Rome Statute. Such might provide better understanding and gain credibility by removal of the double standard.
But no Governments need fear as part of the strategy of control, as part of their being with the in crowd.
Denial of actions is the way of control though there are others as the Four Corners Programme showing Australian complicity in torture mighty indicate.
No I am not advocating terrorism but treating it as an unfathomable black box gets us no where, nor does the application of might.
Governments like law and order as an issue except when applied to them and there is more than enough evidence to warrant testing at law.
That is of course if we want a world run on democratic principles. However the National Security Statement of September 2002 by the USA would suggest old style power politics and the rule of might in which people and countries are pawns to the desires of the rulers, dressed up of course as national needs and patriotic endeavour.
Our leaders have not the patience to continue the frustrating search for World laws, presumably because apart from issues like "nappy changing" which the UN is said to be good at anything further would impinge on governments need for Nationalism, patriotism. Hyped emotive behavour often with the variuos attributes of modern politics, Dog Whistling, Push Polling, wedging and misinformation as much by omission as direct falsehood.
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What if I want to read a biography of Nelson Mandela? Or a history of Fretilin? Or analysis of the troubles in Northern Ireland? If you bring in laws banning anything that relates to terrorism its a pretty wide net.

Why is it in Australia that we want to ban what we don't like? There are many points of view being expressed in our society which I vehemently disagree with and find offensive, but I am still glad that people are allowed to express them. Freedom of speech/expression is a fairly fundamental right in a democracy.
Posted by 1340, Monday, 25 June 2007 11:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
perhaps you're new here, 1340: oz is not a democracy.

ozzians are not citizens, they are subjects. many of them value 'harmony' over freedom of expression. many of them think laws against public discussion are a good thing. many of them support the government view that talking about terrorism is a bad thing, lest it inspire rebellious thoughts. many of them can not conceive that anything the government does can be bad for australian people.

in short, many ozzians are 'biddable', house-trained sheep.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 25 June 2007 3:05:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this issue can't be resolved anytime soon, and most certainly won't.

Having said that, our Civil Libs have shown themselves to be akin to terrorists themselves at times, shown most obviously in their fury that the racist Islamic cleric Sheik Feiz had his vile propaganda banned.

These capitalistic Islamic preachers who abuse western hospitality - selling death on tape! Far worse than what Benny Hinn does! need to be monitored, and we aren't going far enough.

Anyone who preaches violence against another group, or even spreads scurrilous lies unsupportable by evidence - like the 9/11 conspiracy theories that it was really Israel or the C.I.A, or clerics who preach that Christians spread AIDS through Africa, should be banned.

Such things have shown themselves to be dangerous.

One of the London bombers left a will saying that Britain must stop gassing Muslims, an utterly absurd proposition.

This lunatic actually ended the lives of people based on incorrect information, propaganda.

Muslims have shown themselves to be very conspiratorially minded, so need to be watched closely, and much of their literature banned.

This isn't wrong.

I also reject the notion that such actions lead to looking at say, the French resistance against Nazi Germany as terrorists.

No.

The reason Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists is simple. Their own charters state that Israel must be destroyed, Jews genocided, showing they aren't at all victims - rather perpetrators.

I don't remember the French resistance motto being 'All the way to Berlin', or 'Germany for French, not Germans'.

They simply wanted THEIR country back, they didn't want to make Germans bow to France five times a day.

This is a big difference.

It means one needs to look into it more, as groups with such agendas can never be victims. It's like saying we should be nice to Nazi's.

They simply must be crushed.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 25 June 2007 4:17:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My question is with respect! If Israel is the promised land, why do not all jewish people move there?

I appreciate that, that is not possible. I read so much about the meaning of Israel and the promised land.

Who promised this land and has anyone met this person?

Why is this promised land so sacred, that people can be sacrificed and suffer for it. Irrespective of whom they are?
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 25 June 2007 6:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy