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 > Free speech challenge to Australian vilification laws > Comments

Free speech challenge to Australian vilification laws : Comments

By Jo Coghlan, published 6/2/2013

New Gillard ministers face test from Geert Wilders.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 4:09:45 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
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
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 4:09:49 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 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.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 4:24:45 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,
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.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 5:34:13 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
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.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 7:52:33 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
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".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 7 February 2013 11:33:45 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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