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 > General Discussion > Still no Freedom of Speech for Australians

Still no Freedom of Speech for Australians

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The total fraud, Turnbull, knew that no amendment to Section 18c would get through the Senate, so he cynically sent it to that house of ferals first up, and the amendments have been knocked in the head by Wong and Co, as expected. No chance given to the likes of Cory Bernadi to make any amendments that might have seen changes to the iniquitous piece of rubbish.

Was this Turnbull trying to slither around the fact that there might not have been enough so-called conservatives in the Government at lower house level to get things going?

Was this Turnbull pathetically trying to hide the fact that the sort of conservatism that really believes in free speech no longer exists in Australia?

Yes, on both counts. There is no longer any party capable of forming government in Australia that cares about freedom of speech.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 1 April 2017 2:42:17 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
Turnbull may want another DD election. Never learn.
Posted by doog, Monday, 3 April 2017 12:18:22 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
Turnbull and party are so on the nose a DD would be a sure win for the other incompetent Labor stooge.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 3 April 2017 4:20:36 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
only no freedom of speach for white males TTBN. Others can and do say what they want. Triggs and her ilk are a disgrace.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 April 2017 5:04:54 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
Given that 18C is about race and excludes religion what kind of comments does it prohibit in its present form?
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 3 April 2017 5:22:46 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
Sorry can't say it, someone might do an 18C on me.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 3 April 2017 11:35:30 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
Hi Runner,

In a democracy, everyone should be able to criticise Christianity in all its aspects. And they should also be able to criticise any religion in all its aspects. In fact, everybody should be able to criticise atheism in all its aspects. I don't have any problem with any of that.

And, of course, they should have the right to criticise any political ideology, or in fact any controversial idea, in all its aspects.

Come to think of it, that's what OLO is all about :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 8:36:50 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
' In a democracy, everyone should be able to criticise Christianity in all its aspects '

and they have certainly done so for decades Loudmouth. The god denying crowd have mocked Christ, His Word and everything decent now for a long time. I to believe that God has given them the freedom to do so. He is certainly able to defend Himself. Intereting though the gutless cowards are often silent when it comes to Islam. There are a few exceptions but you won't find them on the abc.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 9:48:12 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
I wonder it is that what opponents to 18C desperately want to say but claim they can't?

Runner, it's time all religions gave up on their eternal persecution and martyrdom complex - especially Christians.

You can almost set your watch by the time that the standard "they're trying to ban Christmas" and "they're trying to ban Easter" stories come out every single year.

Is it somehow wrong or unfair to criticise them for their history of abusing children all over the world or dumping hundreds of dead kids into septic tanks in Ireland or members of clergy actively participating in the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda?
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 10:23:27 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
' Is it somehow wrong or unfair to criticise them for their history of abusing children all over the world or dumping hundreds of dead kids into septic tanks in Ireland or members of clergy actively participating in the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda?'

Oh you have found a moral conscience have you Rache. How long has this evolutionary process taken? Well as long as you are consistent and show the same compassion for millions of butchered unborn babies and those killed by Stalin and other god deniers.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 10:51:25 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
Hi Runner,

Yes, I agree that many half-witted lip-flappers find it easy to slag Christianity (especially that of many centuries or millennia ago) as a way of diverting attention from atrocities of other religious adherents today, here and now.

For example: slavery in the Old Testament, i.e. from three and four thousand years ago, is condemned (quite rightly: we must wholeheartedly condemn human rights abuses of thousands of years ago, it's not hard to do) but Islam's current practice of it (e.g. in Mauretania and perhaps elsewhere) is passed over.

I suppose A. J. Phillips would call it a "tu quoque pro tempore" fallacy - what one would witness in school play-grounds as the "Well, you did too !" defence - usually rebutted conclusively by "Well, my daddy's a policeman and he can put you in jail."

So the issue is whether or not Christian or - let's face it - Islamic practice has enough latitude to allow, or even encourage, a broadening of human rights, or not. As they say, Christianity is a very broad church, in which a very wide range of opinions are permitted. Now. Today. Can the same be said for other religious institutions ? And if not, where is Gramscian 'Leftism' when it is needed ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 10:55:59 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
Everyone has the right to feel 'offended', but they cannot expect anyone else to care. There should certainly be no law that dictates what is offensive and what is not. If 18c wasn't so dangerous, it would be childishly laughable.

People these days do not have the faith or inner strength to deal with unpleasantness on their own; they think Big Brother should protect their feelings. The use of 18c amounts to nothing more than revenge. It is empty. It does nothing to change people's minds - you cannot legislate away what people think. The heavy-handed HRC and Section 18c have caused divisions where there were none initially.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 11:18:06 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
I think we are close to agreement Loudmouth however the old testament largely outlines Judaism not Christianity. Don't forget that God's people Israel were subjected to many centuries of slavery. Also interesting that we probably have as much if not more slavery today than ever before. Certainly confirms the fallen nature of man when you see people subjecting others. And of course millions of women are slaves under Islam despite being the most feminist religion around according to one of the abc luvvies.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 11:33:32 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
Indigenous writer, Anthony Dillon, called 18c "an obscenity" in Quadrant Online 3/4.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 12:02:14 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
Hi Ttbn,

Yes, I think he's right.

Hi Runner,

It's quite ridiculous to attack the ancient practices of people long ago, as if they are somehow still carrying them out. But of course, where they ARE still being practised, as slavery is in parts of Muslim north Africa, of course, today, in 2017, they should be condemned.

I'm looking forward to my Leftist colleagues condemning slavery in Muslim north Africa in 2017 :) Or the lack of rights for women in many Muslim societies, in 2017.

No rush, whenever they're ready.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 12:24:21 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
The Labor party seems to be interested in extending 18c to cover religion. To “establish Sharia law by stealth in order to prevent people 'offending Islam'” (Augusto Zimmermman, Spectator)'. The idea comes from Muslim Western Australian MP, Anne Aly. (Get the idea now of what's happening?). The likes Keysar Trad support the idea.

I wonder if the Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, Taoists etc. will also get 'protection'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 12:37:23 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
Hi Ttbn,

Yes, that's the Anne Aly who is a deradicalisation expert. Aren't you glad there are 'moderate' Muslims around ?

But it will be Shari'a law only for Muslims, at least at first. Where could there possibly be any harm in that, the 'Left' may say ? Except, I suppose that Australian women, who happen to be Muslim, will no longer be covered by Australian human rights laws, but be required to submit to all the restrictions imposed by Shari'a: married off young, leave school young, submitting to their husband, serve him as one of his four wives, etc.

Nothing to see there. Then perhaps it can be extended to other Australians, in the interests of diversity and tolerance. Those who don't submit can pay the jizra.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 2:32:23 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
"I wonder if the Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, Taoists etc. will also get 'protection'."

Well they'll certainly be TOLD they will get equal protection.

But if a Christian said, for example, s/he was offended by the Koran's insistence that Mary, mother of Jesus, now resides in Allah's paradise as the wife/concubine/permanent virgin of Mo, I think we all know which would be more protected.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 2:35:35 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
Not sure how anyone could be an 'expert' on something that doesn't exist, Joe. Either Aly thinks we are all stupid, or she knows very little about Islam. Jihad is the real deal; there is nothing radical about it. I wonder what the lady would say if was to be asked 'Do you, as a good Muslim, agree that Australia should be brought into the 'umma' as per Allah's decree?' Now that she is a politician, she would probably lie anyway as well as being comfortable with 'taqiyya', which is the lie Muslims fall back on when they are in the minority.

Mhaze,

The Muslims already insist that Jesus – Isa to them – was a Muslim, and that when he comes back, he will abolish Christianity and everyone will be a Muslim. It's all there in their appalling Koran and hadith.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 4 April 2017 5:54:54 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
Runner,
You think my moral conscience has been an evolutionary process? I thought you didn't believe in evolution and that morality magically came down from "on high".

In fact morality is an evolutionary process. We don't burn witches or ritually beat disobedient children anymore despite what the Bible says because society has decided it was the wrong thing to do. We also tolerate left-handed people now and even the Mormons have declared black people are no longer cursed.

I actually put the atrocities of Stalin and his ilk in the same basket as those of all the rest, no matter what their excuse or their association with some Sky Santa or political doctrine.

Right is right, even if nobody's doing it and wrong is wrong, even if everyone's doing it.

Stalin or Hitler didn't personally kill anyone. It was a multitude of individuals who were willing to to carry out their instructions and that's what is always overlooked.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 12:07:30 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
Hi Fache,

The left hand has always been a problem for Muslims, 'haram': we all have one, and a left side, so their belief that 'left' is a sign of Shaitan [Satan] has always made life difficult. Even now, people are supposed to put their left shoe on second, while of course they wash themselves, and their body parts after elimination [how's that for decorous language ?] with their left hand. It probably causes great offence if (supposing you have a busted right hand) you offer your left hand to someone. You don't touch your heart with your left hand.

Meanwhile, of course, us lefties make up around 12 % of all populations, including Muslims. I don't know how those poor buggers get on.

Mind you, when I was a kid, I was forced to write right-handed, but that was back in the days when even Christians believed that 'left' was of the devil: 'gauche', 'sinister', etc. We're not all that far from barbarism.

Hey, why don't the Left seize on that, as well as the LBQPBITER+) angle, to attack capitalist society ? Of course, I think Reagan and George W. Bush were both lefties, but, thankfully, so is Obama. Notice that Trump is right-handed; that figures.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 2:43:53 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
I believe an offense occurs when an individual is demeaned for things that cannot be changed. However ideas held and actions that are cultural can be criticised. OLO is a perfect example. We freely criticise Hitler, Pol Pot, the North Korean and Syrian monsters because of their ideas and actions. The World needs critics that is what brings about change. However critics must pose real answers to what they oppose.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 3:42:06 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
'Right is right, even if nobody's doing it and wrong is wrong, even if everyone's doing it.'

wow you agree with absolutes Rache. In which case you must be able to see that our morality is devolving not evolving. I mean we slaughter the unborn, push perversion and somehow think we are better than those who burned the 'witches'.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 4:09:52 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
That’s precisely it, Josephus.

<<I believe an offense occurs when an individual is demeaned for things that cannot be changed. However ideas held and actions that are cultural can be criticised.>>

I have made exactly the same point to an OLO regular who used to post with a nom de plume that was intended to bait others into telling him how fitting it was so that he could accuse them of an hypocrisy that didn’t actually exist because of the critical distinction you have made.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6232

The suggestion that we extend 18C to blasphemy is utterly stupid and dangerous on a monumental scale. It would be a world apart from 18C as it currently stands, and if it were implemented then we would effectively be gagged from having so many conversations that need to be had. Particularly the one that isn’t being had on radical Islam that people like Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are trying to have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 4:17:30 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
Hi A.J.,

Yes, I hope that OLO (and less significant blog-sites) can foster and develop deep, passionate and bitter discussion about:

* Religion

* Ideology

* Culture and

* Values.

Here are a few items to provoke discussion:

* Of course, everybody should have freedom of religion, to believe what they like, but nobody has any right to impose their beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, on anybody else, not even their children. People can be Christian if they like, or Muslim if they like, etc.

* While a set of religious beliefs can be innocuous, many ideologies springing from them may be vicious, vile, fascist and contemptible. But, on the other hand., the enlightenment sprang indirectly from, and sometimes in bitter opposition to, Christianity.

* Probably all cultures are flawed, being the products of power structures in societies, which are usually dominated by (a) men and/or (b) those with assets. So they are bound to support forms of inequality and discrimination.

* Australian values are indirectly derived from both the enlightenment and from British forms and values. [But see (c) above].

And, if possible, to do it in a civil and polite manner, in order to give nobody the excuse that they must piss off because they have been offended. We desperately need to tease out these human-made features of our society, and to ignore any threats posed by restrictions like 18 (c).

If any of our values are defective, they should be revised and changed. If not, they should be retained and improved, and certainly championed.

That's a start :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 6:38:03 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
Hi Joe,

Interesting paper by Pr Carl Mosk Uni of Victoria posing the question

'Does Religious Nationalism Diminish Human Development?'

For me Religious Nationalism, as with Secular Nationalism, opposes true liberalism in society. This is a real and growing threat to human development.

http://carlmosk.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/does-religious-nationalism-diminish-the-human-development-index-conference-paper.pdf
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 6 April 2017 7:28:11 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
Hi Paul,

47 pages - I've only got through the Abstract:) I supposed he will define 'liberal nationalism' further down. But I'd support his statement that:

" Secularism and human development go hand in hand mainly because of ideas realized in the political sphere; not because material well-being automatically promotes secular values. One possible outcome for societies shaped by religious nationalism is a religion trap, successful development falling victim to adherence to religious-inspired ideology. "

He suggests that nationalism flowed from the Enlightenment, but I'd dispute that: more likely from what Isaiah Berlin described as the Counter-Enlightenment, as a reaction to its universalism, and its support for equal civil rights. Personally, I'd favour universalism.

Like most human creations, 'the crooked timber of humanity from which nothing straight can be made', as Berlin cites Kant many times, the Enlightenment struggled into existence with many imperfections, and many of its early principles were taken to excess - for example, the notion that history and the social 'sciences' can be made into sciences, like physics, with immutable laws: that defect has caused untold misery.

Anyway, every nation needs a certain degree of 'nationalism', protection of its borders, the power to defend itself, freedom to work up its own system of laws and values, etc. Of course, like with every other Enlightenment principle, that can go too far, towards chauvinism and belief in a right to intrude on others' nationalisms.

As Mosk writes, religion hinders development, not just economic development but more directly the development of a sense of civil rights, equality and freedoms. After all, most religions assume that their sacred works dictate the level and direction of those aspects of society. That's basically what Enlightenment thinkers, from Machiavelli and Descartes to Condorcet and even Marx were fighting against. Religion seem to encourage cohesion to a certain primitive point, but then (when totalitarian tactics become inevitable) acts as a brake on further development.

Now to the rest of his thesis .....

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:10:26 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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