The Australian record of violent protest generally concerns tangible social issues. Religious issues are neither tangible or even existential, concerning as they do non-existent entities. Violence concerning these matters are worrisome regardless of the level of that violence, in that reconciliation is logically impossible.

While the violence in Sydney may have been 'over-exaggerated,' the incitement to violence, killing by beheading, is deeply disturbing, reasonably receiving a lot of attention and, i would have thought, prosecution.

If it doesn't rate, it does worry!
It's a sign of deeply held resentment by young radical Muslim males, against something or someone, and a cancer that needs to be excised before it becomes malignant and spreads!
It's also a sign of massive levels of blame shifting!
Blame shifting that allows people not born yet, to carry the can for the "sins" of forbears or ethnicity?
Meaning, for the intellectually challenged, a few rioting Muslims, means all Muslims must be the same, or just as illogical in directing their also often mindless anger?
Were there no issue to rail against, these thugs and brutes, with this fundamental flaw or inability to think or reason for themselves, would invent one?
Just so they can express their mindless rage!
The shock jocks have got a lot to answer for, be it a spittle flecked hate-filled sermon/evocation, pounded out from the pulpit or over the airwaves!
The end result and mindless radicalisation is invariably one and the same?
Yes, there are issues and any amount of inequity throughout our social structure!
But we should be using the brains we were born with, to seek to solve these and other issues, in a truly just and fair-minded way, rather than simply amplify them, to whip up some political or socialistic outcome or agenda?
We've had Muslims in our midst, since we started exploring and opening up the arid interior, using Afghans and their camels to run freight lines.
Their great great grandchildren can sit beside you at the footy, munching a meat pie, or a lamb burger, washed down with a beer and exhorting greater effort from their favourite, in typical strine!
They would be just as disturbed as any other fair dinkum Aussie, at the recent mindless display in Sydney.
As already noted, given it was just a few hundred, and our Muslim neighbours number around half a million; therefore, hardly representative.
A bit of an overblown storm in a teacup, and seized on by another intellectually challenged minority element, as an excuse to give vent to equally despicable xenophobia or blood-lust!
Rhrosty.

The author says this:

"While we are Christian based and a liberal democratic society those Muslim communities have adapted over time and have tended to accept our over-riding culture while maintaining their religious practice."

That is unreasonable optimism; demands for sharia are strident:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/full-bred-aussie-with-a-longing-for-sharia-law/story-e6frg6z6-1225991941740

And soothing:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2718918.html#comments

Generally, the author's comparison with other examples of violent protest in Australia's past is inadequate because the reasons for those protests are completely different from the muslim protests; if you view the islamic protests as being part of a wider world view, as Tabbaa has conceded on another thread, then their importance takes on a far more urgent context.

Just because we have had no deaths from islamic activity in this nation yet is not a cause for complacency.

Rhrosty:

"The shock jocks have got a lot to answer for, be it a spittle flecked hate-filled sermon/evocation, pounded out from the pulpit or over the airwaves!"

Have a bex mate, and a good lie down.

The lesson of history is to look at incidents in their networked CONTEXTS.

German goons storming the Rhineland. No worries – only an incident. Sudetenland. A blip. Austria. None of our business. Their holy texts promised to expunge freedom all over the world in a thousand year caliphate – er, sorry, Reich. Full of whining about Germany being hard done by. But no, the likes of Winston Churchill, then warning everyone from the back bench, were dismissed as hate filled xenophobes. The thing was to apologise, again and again. To walk on eggshells. Next step Poland and Mein Kampf didn’t look so funny after all.

And now? All of a sudden a worldwide Moslem howl of rage focused on disrespect from us kafirs for their “prophet”, and far from the first time (Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc etc). That’s context. And Martin Place was part of it with its overt calls to murder dissenters who insult their “prophet”. Nothing remotely like kerfuffles on the wharves. The jihad didn’t end when the imams shushed the protesters. They’re still around, deeply entrenched and widely connected.

Sound advice from President Truman: when a finger comes under the door jump on it or it’s followed by a hand clawing for your throat.

The Legal Affairs section of today's 'Australian' reports a call by the former head of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Hyder Gulam for the introduction of sharia law in Australia. Mr Gulam characterises this as 'legal plualism' and argues that it is a hallmark of a mature system of law.

This is exactly the sort of arogance that underlies the violence in Sydney and elsewhere around the world. It's the wilful blindness of those calling for the UN to adopt a universal law against blasphemy.

Those who choose to migrate to Australia or to any other country enter into an unspoken but still binding contract to abide by the laws, the institutions and values of that country. If Muslims want to be trusted by the Australia that has welcomed them and given them a chance for a new start in life, then, while they may practise their religion as freely as may any other Australian religious believers, they will do so within the framework and values of Australian democracy and Australian law.

Australians are also entitled to expect that Muslims will express respect and support for Australian democracy and for Australian law. To call constantly for the introduction of sharia law is to thumb your nose at the country that shelters you.

There is no compromise with islam; it's not as if islam is shy about declaring its intentions or values:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/too_hot_for_even_a_democrat/

The real issue is the currency given to islam in the West by a compliant MSM and craven politicians.

Cohenite,
Hey, I just had a thought, do you think that in the minds of some of these "craven" politicians there's the idea that Islam could be a sort of stabilising factor for the West if they can absorb it into the present Liberal Capitalist system? Think about it, a controlled Islam provides a set of balances against both radical Left and Right wing tendencies, much as the religious Christian right does in some countries.

Hi again Cohenite,

On the topic of vilification, did you see this earlier today?

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/

You will recognise much of the commentary from our chats here earlier. And several of the links as yours.

Cheers, AA

This thread is proof that no amount of evidence will make many people see.

Violence for any reason, at any level must be deplored.
The fact that Australia is a relatively peaceful and civilised country is something we should all take pride in, and not take for granted.
Since we are a -nominally- Christian country, accepting Sharia law is absurd. If we are to incorporate Religious law (hundreds of years out of date) into our courts, why not Christian Law?
Let's bring back stoning women for adultery, horse whipping anyone who works on the Sabbath, killing witches, killing or beating slaves who are insufficiently respectful...
Why do we need to import religious absurdities when we have more than enough of our own?
Obviously, if we cherry pick vigorously enough, there are pearls of wisdom in every ancient text.
I have the greatest respect for the Islamic banking system, for instance.
But to accept these texts in toto as the inviolable word of God...?
This is to suggest that Human experience, learning and history are worthless.

Alan, glad to be of help; now, do you feel better, having found a kindred editor at Mr Wood's place? Do you think Bolt's claim that some 'white' aboriginals, apart from the litigants in Eatock, have deliberately chosen aboriginal status for benefit?

Your view about Bolt is well known; however, I am not sure how you are transferring that view to islam and its claims that it has been offended? Are you saying there are factual errors in the commentary about islam and that islam would have an action under the RDA against its 'insulters'?

What annoys me most is the hypocrisy of the moslems.
Just read some time the invective and hate that they direct at Christians
and the west in particular.
One story put out was that at a particular festival Jews choice a child
to eat at the dinner.

Bit far out, but I have seen a number of such things.
If the "Christian" world reacted like the moslems there would have been
nuclear war long ago.

Hi again Cohenite,

Yes, quietly pleased the analysis of the Murdoch campaign to rehabilitate Andrew got a run.

As discussed earlier, Bolt is perfectly free to express whatever opinion he wishes about pale Aborigines or anyone else with no restrictions whatsoever. The judge made this quite clear. But he cannot fabricate false claims about the behaviour and motivation of named individuals, can he? Simple as that.

The thread running through Eatock v Bolt, the commentary on Muslim extremism here and this weekend’s fuss about Alan Jones is Australia’s extraordinary practice of elevating proven liars and shonks to positions of great authority.

Did you see that the ‘apology’ by Alan Jones at the weekend was itself riddled with blatant lies? There is a full recording of the entire Young Libs meeting. Much of what Jones claimed had been said there - about Chatham rules and no journos and so on - simply hadn’t been. He just made all that sh!t up after the event.

Anthony, can you see how bizarre this appears from vantage points where lying is not celebrated as a great national virtue? Many Australians laud Jones, Bolt, Akerman and others for their extremist language and continual fabrications, and are happy to see them paid handsomely. Yet when unknown Muslims do the same – as in your links here to The Australian and Bolt – it is a worry.

Just hilarious!

hi Alan,

nice to hear you again. Do you agree with my views on the protests?

It's an aspect, that in the rush to sensationalise and for ratings, All media outlets overlooked. Not just the usual suspects. Do you think that a reasonsable indictement of Aussie media.

I personally found the Al Jezeera coverage the most balanced. Odd isn't it? Or is it? I think with all the personal denigration and attacks from our parliaments to our P and C's we've finally reached the nadir. Once personal vitrol was introduced into political debate we started on the slippery slope.

I blame Keating and the media who went in raptures over his 'spite and spittle'. That was the start. The highlighting of the abusive non answers in question time accentutes the slide. Hopefully Jones performance sees an end of it. I hope the media wake up to themselves. The enviroment today is toxic and at flashpoint. People are really angry and peed off. Media coverage is fostering that.

I believe the sensationalism around the riots was just another slip down that slide.

regards Keith

Hello again Keith,

Pretty sure I do agree with you on this. (But don’t worry, I don’t intend to make a habit of it.)

Protests are generally to be encouraged as a positive expression of opinion, passion and engagement - as long as they are not violent or excessively disrespectful of those with other views. Moderately disrespectful is okay.

Agree regarding Al Jezeera’s coverage. It’s a good source of news and opinion on issues not covered in the West, and certainly seems to provide often a balancing viewpoint.

And yes, I agree political vitriol accelerated during the Keating era with PK largely to blame. That it subsided during the Howard years was a good thing. Its recent reappearance does appear to be doing a lot of damage to political discourse in Australia.

I blame the media too, Keith. But you know that already …

Cheers, AA

@ Alan Austin,

<<Many Australians laud Jones, Bolt, Akerman and others for their extremist language and continual fabrications, and are happy to see them paid handsomely. Yet when unknown Muslims do the same – as in your links here to The Australian and Bolt – it is a worry>>

Some say that one picture is worth a thousand words.

When the words are those of Alan Austin, one picture is worth a million words:http://tinyurl.com/987wsar

Seeking to equate the comments of Jones, Bolt & Akerman with the comment being made in this picture --very, very sad!

Hi SPQR,

I wasn’t actually referring to that photo. Was referring specifically to Cohenite’s links to The Australian and to the proven racist, Andrew Bolt.

But no, I wouldn’t try to equate the offences of Alan Jones with those in your photo.

Too many stark moral and ethical differences.

One. Alan Jones has called specifically for the killing of named individuals – twice now. He wants your Prime Minister drowned in a chaff bag, and he wants her beheaded by guillotine. The child in your photo does not seem to be calling for the killing of anyone in particular.

Two. The child in your photo probably doesn’t even know what the sign says. Pretty sure Jones understands and believes the significance what he is calling for.

Three. Your PM has done nothing to warrant calls for her death. From the vantage point of Arabs and Muslims who have had hundreds of thousands of their countrymen – and women and children – slaughtered in recent invasions by Christian nations, there are quite valid justifications for them wanting to see militant anti-Muslim blasphemers killed. (I don’t agree with them. They are wrong. But we can understand their viewpoint.)

Four. The child in your photo does not have a radio station to foist on the public his calls for killing. Jones and 2GB express their views via Australia’s public broadcasting network.

Five. The little boy is not paid to say what he is saying. Alan Jones gets rewarded very handsomely. He is paid by corporations which enjoy wide popular patronage.

They are both wrong, SPQR. Both bad. But not as bad as each other.

Hi Alan,

<<I wasn’t actually referring to that photo…[but] to Cohenite’s links to The Australian>>

Well if you were referring to the articles in the Australian you still haven’t excused yourself, since the comments in the newspaper are worse than the comments on the sign. Let me remind you of those comments (since in your knee jerk haste to attack your opponents it seems you have not given them due consideration)

One: “One day Australia will be ruled by sharia, no doubt,"
Two: "I hate the parliament. I hate [democracy] with a pure hate," he says. Moreover, it is obligatory for all Muslims to reject democracy, because it is a challenge to God's law: "
Three: “O Muslims stand tall, take the vow and pledge allegiance to none other than Allah and his Messenger and vowing allegiance w the Muslims while disloyalty to the disbelievers and their kufr [infidel] ways."
Four “"[When] American and Australian troops have gone there to kill Muslims (read fight anywhere involving Muslims) …, they deserve to die. Under sharia, yes they do. That is the judgment of sharia. They are eligible to be attacked."

And the same Sharia law he is spruiking also mandates the death penalty for: adultery, apostasy,homosexuality & the taking of intoxicants.

Then, you go on to say: << The child in your photo does not seem to be calling for the killing of anyone in particular>>
And you are right, s/he does not call for the death of any ONE individual –rather the death of ALL who insult the prophet.
But by the same token it might be hard to accuse Hitler of having antipathy for any ONE Jew –he just sought to kill ALL Jews.

And despite your best efforts to make it seem so, its hardly about the culpability of Jones vis-à-vis the child.But deeper issues involving two colluding memes:
The first: which seeks to stifle opposition by killing all who criticize/lampoon its icons ,and
The second: which stoops to ally itself with anyone who might bolster its defence of its own waning icons (Swan, Gillard &, Marx )

Alan, you are very biased; unbalanced even; I won't revisit the 'facts' of Eatock because they are irrelevant. It is sufficient based on the Judgement that a party have their feelings hurt by commentary to succeed under S. 18C. But even the spread of facts in Eatock seem only to have applied to her and Heiss; what facts were discussed in relation to the other litigants? In respect of them the judgement refers to a generic "fair-skinned Aboriginal people" who will be offended by the generic suggestion that some of them will have used aboriginality to claim benefits.

There is no wriggle room here for any criticism of any "fair-skinned Aboriginal".

Anyway, it seems to me that a generic muslim could invoke the same basis for litigation; say for example the claim that muslims are using legal rights in Australia to further their intention to replace the current legal system with sharia, and are therefore hypocrites and opportunists.

Do you think a generic muslim would have a claim against such a generic comment as that?

Hi Cohenite,

Section 18C requires that the articles were "reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group." Hence for Bolt to have breached the law, offence taken must be established.

Clearly the applicants had been offended. That wasn't hard to prove. Everyone knew this beforehand. HWT did not challenge this. But the contest wasn't about whether offence had been caused.

The case was about 18D, the critical section guaranteeing liberty of opinion and freedom of speech. "Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy," Bromberg asserted early.

The judge made it clear that 18D protects any opinion, however obnoxious — provided it is genuinely held, for academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or in the public interest, or in publishing a fair and accurate media report.

He repeatedly reinforced this: "Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides no valid basis for the law to curtail the expression of opinion."

The issue was not Bolt's expressions of opinion, but whether the factual allegations on which his opinions were based were accurate. This question occupied most of the court's time and is the subject of the greater part of the judgment.

So the case was clearly not about freedom of opinion. It was about freedom to spread untruths.

"Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."

Please read the judgment, Anthony.

Re: “what facts were discussed in relation to the other litigants?”

See paragraphs 383–406.

Summarised at 378: “in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts asserted in the Newspaper Articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal have been substantially proven to be untrue.”

Re: “Do you think a generic muslim would have a claim against such a generic comment as that?”

No. Of course not. We can make whatever generic comments we like – as long as they are not riddled with blatantly false assertions about the actions and motivations of named individuals.

Anthony, please read the judgment.

Please the Judgement intones Alan.

Read and disagreed with; I mean you contradict yourself when you say:

"Section 18C requires that the articles were "reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group." Hence for Bolt to have breached the law, offence taken must be established."

This has NOTHING to do with facts; in Eatock only Eatock and Heiss are mentioned in the context of factual "errors". Cole, who is mentioned at paragraph 383, is not associated with any error of fact; about her Bromberg says:

"This is a comment. The facts upon which the comment is based are not stated, referred to or notorious."

A comment; ie islam is an eschatological, barbarous religion; Joe Blow is a muslim; therefore he is an eschatological barbarian.

Queue here behind Bromberg's judgement for remedies for hurt feelings. The reason being, as S 18D says:

Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Bromberg held that Bolt did not have a case to answer against Cole, or indeed any of the other litigants except Eatock and Heiss because he found he based his comments on errors of fact.

continued

Part 2

Those particular errors of fact aside do you not understand that generic comments are still potentially caught by Bromberg's net because a particular person individually, or as a member of group, can still claim because S 18C says this:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The 'error of fact' is that the person/group can simply say they are not eschatological barbarians.

Bromberg has fastened on problematic errors of fact to mask this universality and contradiction between the 2 sections, 18C and 18D of the RDA.

We have already seen this happen in Victoria when muslims sued on the basis of quotes taken from the Koran pursuant to a similarly worded Act. The fact that the muslims ultimately and only partially lost can provide no great comfort that Bromberg's judgement will not cover such matters.

Hi Cohenite.

Re: “This has NOTHING to do with facts”.

Correct. 18C serves only to establish offence. This is necessary for the case to proceed.

For example, if I claimed all Aborigines were exceptionally talented at mountaineering and gave factually incorrect examples of blackfellas who had climbed Everest, action against me would fail. My allegation would not be "reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group."

That’s all 18C does. There was no argument about 18C. Only about 18D – freedom of speech.

Re: “only Eatock and Heiss are mentioned in the context of factual "errors".

Incorrect, Anthony.

1. Ms Cole: “The facts upon which the comment is based are not stated, referred to or notorious.” (383)

2. Re [group] biology: “To some extent, the biological examination was shown to be factually erroneous” (392)

3. Re [group] cultural upbringing: “the absence of any significant cultural reference leaves an erroneous impression.” (392)

4. Errors re [group] culture: “references, where given, were erroneous.” (398)

5. Omissions re [group] culture: “Those facts were relevant ... Their omission meant that the facts were not truly stated.” (398)

6. Mr Clark being non-Aboriginal (400)

7. Ms Cole’s mother: “That statement is factually inaccurate” (402)

8. Ms Cole’s father: “That statement is factually incorrect” (402)

9. Ms Cole’s grandmother: “Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space” (403)

10. Prof Behrendt: “The factual assertions … were also erroneous.” (404)

11. 12. Atkinsons in first article: “The facts given are grossly incorrect.” (406)

13. Atkinson in second article: Also “grossly incorrect.” (406)

14. McMillan: “gratuitous references … based on a selective misrepresentation” (413)

Re: “Bromberg held that Bolt did not have a case to answer against Cole, or indeed any of the other litigants.”

Incorrect. See above.

Re: “Bromberg has fastened on problematic errors of fact to mask this universality and contradiction between the 2 sections, 18C and 18D of the RDA.”

(a) No, there is no contradiction. Just different hurdles to jump.

(b) So you accept there were “problematic errors of fact”, Anthony?

Cheers, AA

The point Alan is summed up at paragraph 401:

"There is other evidence which also suggests to me that Mr Bolt was not particularly interested in including reference to the Aboriginal cultural upbringing of the individuals he wrote about."

If people have a choice because there are competing cultural/upbringing elements in their life why is it a factual error to, as Bolt did, concentrate on the non-aboriginal part of their life which they have chosen?

You have not addressed the point I make about potential muslim litigation based on on S 18C and D, and using Bromberg's principle that, as I argue, any description of a person's life, even by ommission, can be construed as a factual error sufficient to ground action under those sections.

Hi Cohenite,

Re: “If people have a choice …”

Yes, that's precisely the lie at the centre of Bolt’s racism. He asserts they had a choice. Bromberg found they didn’t.

To accuse them of making a choice to effect financial fraud is a pretty appalling libel.

“Each of them genuinely identifies as an Aboriginal person and has done so since their childhood. Each was raised to identify as an Aboriginal person and was enculturated as an Aboriginal person. None of them ‘chose’ to be Aboriginal. Nor have they used their Aboriginal identity inappropriately to advance their careers. Each is entitled to regard themselves and be regarded by others as an Aboriginal person within the conventional understanding of that description.” (Summary 10)

Re your hypothetical Muslim litigation, Anthony, there are hurdles:

Are the allegations "reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”? If yes, 18C1a is satisfied and the case proceeds.

Do the allegations impact the group? If yes, 18C1b is satisfied.

Were they public allegations? If yes, 18C2 is satisfied.

Then we get to 18D and the exemptions for freedom of speech. It then depends on how and why the allegations are actually made as to whether exemptions apply. These are actually pretty broad, which is why cases are so rare.

With Bolt, the sheer volume of factual errors and serious omissions was overwhelming evidence of bad faith.

I listed for The Global Mail lawyers 22 errors, misrepresentations and omissions which Bromberg identified. I suggested we go with 19 to be safe from accusations of duplication. They accepted this.

How can any journalist make 22 errors? In two articles.

Bromberg’s answer to this is in the suck-it-up-princess paragraph, 458:

“Mr Bolt and HWT contended that the terms of any declaration made should expressly state that the conduct in contravention of s 18C ‘did not constitute and was not based on racial hatred or racial vilification’. It is contended that the inclusion of these words will facilitate the educative effect of the declaration made and contribute to informed debate. I do not regard the inclusion of the words suggested as appropriate.”

"Yes, that's precisely the lie at the centre of Bolt’s racism. He asserts they had a choice. Bromberg found they didn’t."

Bromberg was wrong; they did:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4281772.html

Your position is surreal; I'll leave it at this; I bet a muslim or islamic group will litigate in a similar vein; oh look, they already have:

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/373248/now-broadcaster-told-to-say-sorry-over-vermin-comment/?cs=36

Hi again Anthony,

No, you can’t say Bromberg was wrong. You might not like him being right. But there you go.

Bolt and HWT had all the time in the world and boundless resources at their disposal to present their case. It failed spectacularly.

It failed because Bolt picked on the wrong blackfellas.

Now, if he had chosen your woman at the Drum, then no worries. He would have had his article, made his case, bolstered his opinion and been home free.

Ms Pholi clearly did have a choice, which she exercised twice – once to claim Aboriginality to gain advantage – and the second time to repudiate her Aboriginality to gain advantage.

But Bromberg found overwhelmingly that each of the nine applicants/witnesses “was raised to identify as an Aboriginal person and was enculturated as an Aboriginal person. None of them ‘chose’ to be Aboriginal. Nor have they used their Aboriginal identity inappropriately to advance their careers.”

If there was the slightest doubt, HWT would have appealed, wouldn’t they, Anthony? Bromberg was cautioned throughout by HWT’s counsel that they would take this all the way to the High Court.

Maybe that’s why the judgment is so meticulous, so excruciatingly detailed - and so long that hardly anybody has read it.

But it is also a watertight judgment. Not the slightest shadow of doubt that he got the law right and the decision right. Even if it hurts to admit it.