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 > How much intolerance must we tolerate? > Comments

How much intolerance must we tolerate? : Comments

By Xavier Symons, published 26/2/2013

Are we really promoting the idea of tolerance if we allow someone who is self-confessedly intolerant to grandstand around the country?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
loudmouth and jay...your points noted...but me thinks my point has not been grasped yet...to put it another way, whatever we see think and feel now about our world now...some group in the past had their own views on which they acted, whatever we want to term it now...hence the appeal court of usa decision as an example...

rule being the most powerful got what they wanted...talking only goes so far...at the end of the day raw power rules...just the justifications differed/deceit after...hence we must never take our eyes off our history...lest it repeats itself in the same form...

so here I know Geert Wilders anti-islamic views...and even though it appeals to a select group, and offends others...at the end of the day it really means nothing but some heated debate value...at times bit more...

it about power...unless Geert manages to access real military power(like hitler and militarization of germany in 1930's) or something...as in history and the power that drove acts that affected vast populations as in my examples...he is going to disappear soon...

I suspect many of us prefer to hang a curtain over the mirror with an acceptable image when we look at ourselves...so disconnect human history as not "me"...when it was people just like us...maybe we should remove the curtain and accept what we see...and if it troubles then act effectively for some change from within...than keep our daily lives with the false image...I even admire peovple/group who take great effort create a decietful image to project of themselves to the world...at least they saw what they really are in the mirror and accepted what they saw...albeit unacceptable to civil society...maybe then this issue will be handled very differently by us...and prevent mass manipulation of the general persons...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 5:59:03 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
>>How much intolerance must we tolerate? >>

Good question.

How about these guys:

Dr Abdul Rahman al-Sudais

>>THE Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies ... the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs ... These are the Jews - an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption ... The insult to and contempt of Arabs, Muslims ... reaches its height at the hands of the rats of the world, the violators of agreements, in whose minds abide treachery, destruction and deceit and in whose veins flow occupation and tyranny.>>

Or:

Dr Zakir Naik:

>>" ... the 44-year-old medical doctor [Zakir Naik] recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.>>

Both are en route to Australia to attend a Muslim gabfest in Melbourne.

Should they be tolerated?

See also:

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

I suspect Wilders was finally granted a visa because the Gillard government did not have the stomach to ban the above two bozos and knew it couldn't justify letting them in while keeping the Dutchman out.

A case of the right decision for the wrong reasons. All three should be allowed to have their say.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 8:49:18 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 real “Devil in the Detail” is the immigration policies. To flood this country with immigrants as an underhanded way of stacking numbers and controlling dissent sets the charge for future strife.

...In the 1918 Darwin Rebellion, a major part of the complexity of events which resulted in a mass-march of a thousand demonstrators on Government house, where an effigy of the chief Administrator of the NT was burnt, was a direct cause of the over represented number of Chinese competing for scarce jobs. The population of Darwin at the time was almost 50% Chinese.

...In this event Government House was sacked and the Administrator saved by the timely arrival of a destroyer, on which he fled to safety. Another timely arrival was Government intervention and the introduction of the White Australia policy, used at the time to balance the “hold” the Chines had over the commercial district of Darwin.

...I think the Muslim issue is a misnomer which deliberately or not, hides the real issue of Multiculturalism and Multiculturalism’s ability to mask inevitable problems of high levels of immigration. I also believe the very unpopular 457 visas will be the fuse that lights a social bomb of discord; Australia’s version of sectarian violence is inevitable in some future time.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 9:40:19 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
Stevenimeyer:

...Yer, but you are referring to rhetorical quotes; the speeches you reference are authorised by poetic licence. It only needs half a brain to understand that the references to Jews in them are to Zionist Jews of Israel.

...There is a huge element of truth in those rhetorical speeches, especially if you are a Palestinian! I see no real problem with those speeches if looked at in a realistic context.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 10:04:33 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
Dan

>>...Yer, but you are referring to rhetorical quotes; the speeches you reference are authorised by poetic licence. It only needs half a brain to understand that the references to Jews in them are to Zionist Jews of Israel.>>

So let me get this straight.

So it is because of the Zionists that Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem (Not Indian Muslim cleric Zakir Naik as I originally wrote) is recommending capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for people who abandon Islam?

Wow those Zionists have a lot to answer for!

Then we have Saudi cleric Dr Abdul Rahman al-Sudais

>>THE Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies ... the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs ….>>

So even back then, thousands of years ago, before Zionism, it was known that those evil Zionist would appear!

Presumably Abu Hamza would not be advising Muslim men to beat their wives but for the Zionists.

LOL

OK Dan

I think I've grasped your brand of "logic."

Everything bad in the world is due to the evil Zionists and never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Americans.

And of course you mean "Zionists" not "Jews."
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 26 February 2013 10:29:44 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 ral question is probably which intolerance must we tolerate rather than how much of it.

I've not seen the detail but there was mention in the article of someone being assaulted while tying to get to one of Wilders talks, I can recall violent assaults against people trying to attend One Nation meetings. Most of us have seen the threats against anyone deemed to have insulted Islam or its prophet.

The impression I get from those who would see Wilders silenced is that they are quite willing to tollerate the intollerance of those who would bash (or threaten the life of) someone listening to or saying things they don't like. The intollerance they don't like is those who say that those of a particular belief system (or culture) are not fitting in and pose a threat and we should do things differently.

I'venot listened to Wilders, I don't have much time for the more ardent if the anti-muslim crowd but I don't like selective tollerance of some. Actual violence and threats of violence are tollerated, expressing concern is not.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 27 February 2013 7:05:36 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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