This article is a lot of rationalisation by a fool. Badar certainly did intend to promote honour killing, as if Australia was subject to sharia law.

Richard King, Honour killings are murder, there is no sanitization whatsoever of murder. There can be no explanation for this kind of murder, thousands of women and some men are murdered every year in the name of this dreadful so called religion. No one should be interested in anything Bader had or wanted to say, he has twisted his story around as usual blaming someone else.

the Christophobic academic left are the only ones that could come up with such a dangerous idea. As Gerald Henderson said imagine their outcry if the idea was 'stone the gays'. The left are very selective and perverted in what constitutes and offense.

btw I noticed that Rolf Harris was said to have regularly fed on porn. The very thing that the perverts seem to defend.

I actually contacted Uthman and asked him whether he is interested in writing on the subject for OLO. From what I can see he was going to make a "plank in the eye" style argument, not necessarily defending honour killings, but taking offence at criticism of them whilst not criticising other things.

I agree with the author of this piece. Better to have these things out in the open where they can be exposed for what they are, rather than hiding away in the recesses of sectional debate.

Brendan O'Neill has an interesting piece on Spiked on the same theme http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/censorship-is-being-outsourced-to-the-mob#.U7H-BpRmM3g as this article.

I fully agree with the author. Honor killings are reprehensible, but if we are to kill any debate on ideas and practices with which we disagree, how can sunlight ever get through to those ideas and practices and expose then for the dangerous nonsense they are?
Silencing one's opponents merely gives them the oxygen they need to prosper. The organisers of the 2014 Festival of Dangerous Ideas have not only made two mistakes in the last week, they have created a martyr. How will that benefit anyone?

There's no such thing as censorship in 2014, if I want to watch a video of a cute kitten chasing a ball of wool or a video of an Iraqi christian being publicly tortured and crucified by ISIL both are just a few clicks click away.
There's also something extremely fishy about this current "honour killing" furore, did anyone see the piece about the latest Pakistani outrage on SBS late news last night? The clip featured a cast of people representing themselves as family members of the young couple lynched for having an affair, all of whom were clearly reading lines from a script in their hands.
Every time an issue like this crops up we have to ask ourselves the question "Why now?".
As Walid Shoebat says about Islam "What part of the word kill don't you understand?" Anyone who disobeys Islamic law or flouts tradition must be killed, that's how Islam sustains it's hegemony and it's a tradition handed down from the prophet himself, it's not open to interpretation.
So why the outrage now?

To say there is no such thing as censorship in 2014 is simply wrong.
Those interested in the truth of the matter need look no further than the linked article in Graham Y's post above.

Halduell,
That's not censorship, it's democracy in action,democracy is the rule of the mob or rule from the streets, mobs are led by demagogues and they normally initiate the use of force tactically rather than strategically.
The Twitter mobs are actually undermining the undemocratic laws which censor speech in this country, the anti discrimination laws are quite clear on what is permitted and what is not and bullying a person or group because of their personal opinions or beliefs is not allowed. It's also illegal to sack someone for holding personal views or opinions and I wonder what it's going to cost Opera Australia when Tamar Iveri takes them to court?
The conflict here is between an un-democratic state and legal system existing in the physical world trying to oversee a populace who inhabit a completely separate, "virtual democracy" with no set rules or codes of conduct.
Do you understand what I mean? The state and the people are operating in two different worlds or two different countries if you will, one is physical, the other virtual.
The organisations featured in the article could simply ignore the Twitter mobs and nothing further would happen because the 20,000 "likes" or re-tweets really means nothing in the physical world, the likelihood of any actual adverse consequences if FODI or Opera Australia simply said "no comment" is extremely remote.
I guess it's mostly older people who run these organisations so they don't understand how the internet and particularly social media work, it's all basically a game to most of us, my posts for example are loaded with talking points and phrases geared to the way google searches operate more so than the way a normal face to face discussion might occur.

Here's how so called hashtag activism can be corrupted or steered toward a particular end:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/end-fathers-day-and-feminist-troll-accounts

A well-written article. It highlights particularly the fatuous attention-seeking of the self-described Festival of Dangerous Ideas that it firstly proposed such a provocative title and then promptly crumbled at the predictable backlash. Badar is the only winner from this farce.

"For most of recorded history parents have reluctantly sacrificed their children – sending them to kill or be killed for the honour of their nation, their flag, their king, their religion. But what about killing for the honour of one's family? "

"Notwithstanding the rather academic prose, this sounds like a potentially interesting debate.."

Actually it isn't, since Badar is begging the question, (1) he either, unconsciously or deliberately attempts to equate the nation state with a patriarchal family. The reasons for which people went to war in past conflicts are irrelevant to the citizens of a modern liberal democracy, they are not 'sacrificed' by their parents. (2) families don't live or breath, they have neither honour nor rights.

There is no free speech obligation in a democracy to provide a platform for morally repugnant views or to treat those opinions with any respect whatsoever, Badar is a propagandist, not a debater.

Your article is clear and the message simple. Agreed on all.

If the talk had a less provocative title......
If our society was more tolerant of hearing 'dangerous ideas'......
Who gains?

Shut down, prevented, won't happen

I am close to this topic and can provide real evidence of challenged opinions changing lives for the better to breed tolerance across cultures, religions and gender.

Have we missed an opportunity? or is this whole show a dog-whistle?

Indeed, why the outrage now?
Perhaps it's because we are just finding out, this outrage is actually happening, and not just a fiction put about, to somehow disgrace Islam?
The Koran expressly forbids the spilling of innocent blood and to paraphrase, states unequivocally, there is no place in paradise for those who do so!
It also states in non-revised editions, that Jihad, is a personal internal struggle.
If we think that the crusades and their methods, were beneath all contempt and Gods laws!
Why then would any true believer, seek to emulate them?
A person, any person must remain free to choose his or her religious beliefs; but not free to seriously revise or reinterpret them!
And given in some cultures, a women need only be accused of infidelity, before being summarily murdered!
There's a lot that needs to be fixed, just by spreading the true unedited word, as opposed to those, who have revised it beyond recognition, for nefarious/evil or inhumane or insane power hungry purposes?
And that critique may be applied to virtually all religions, but particularly those, that have morphed into absolutely controlled cults!
If a stone is thrown into a pond, there is just no way it cannot cause ripples, or a cause and effect reaction!
Similarly, when a so called holy edict is revised, it simply ceases to be a holy edict.
If it is God's word to begin with, then God just doesn't make mistakes, no matter what some pulpit pounding preacher contends!
No mortal man has the right to do so; yet, given the almost endless revision, many obviously have.
If you have no religion no belief, then simply believe in the almighty irrefutable truth.
And that almighty truth tells us that murder by any other name, is still murder; and that there is absolutely no honour whatsoever, in murder!
And there is only one possible outcome or ultimate destination, according to holy law, for those servants of Satan, who commit it!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,
That interpretation of the Koran is selective and doesn't reflect the tone of the book or the wider body of Islamic law and teaching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xCdehrV96U
"Religion of peace" is a catchphrase like "diversity is our greatest strength", to say that Islam is peaceful or tolerant is a misrepresentation of it's founding myths, it's laws and the way it's practiced in the real world.
Jesus and Buddha didn't go gouging out people's eyes, amputating their limbs and beheading them, Mohammed and his men did exactly that, the prophet is thought to have personally, by his own hand killed about 900 people.
This is Raqqua, Syria 2014.This is the true face of Islam:
http://syrianfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/crucified_by_isil-6.png
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Syrians-crucified.jpg

JoM,
Ghastly & utterly primitive animalistic madness. To think that Labor & the Greens are vying for the votes of such people is beyong human reasoning. It really makes you wonder who is worse those who come here or those who invite them here simply to build a greater voter pool.

"But Mr Badar is no pussycat, either, and there are many people (me included) who think his views should be better known than they are, if only so they can be rejected. A spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir – a group banned in many western countries but described in the festival blurb as a 'global advocacy group working for positive change' – he is a religious fundamentalist who agitates for Sharia law and the restoration of the Caliphate. Badar claims not to have liked the title 'Honour Killings are Morally Justified' (he preferred 'The West Needs Saving by Islam') but since he didn't make his appearance at FODI"

Hizb ut-Tahrir appears to have the same aims as ISIS-- hardly a very caring lot, judging by the article below:
"Faces of war: The reality facing children in Iraq and Syria", http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/faces-of-war-the-reality-facing-children-in-iraq-and-syria/story-fnixwvgh-1226974107403

Mr Badar's preferred title, 'The West Needs Saving by Islam', is also misleading. Under a Hizb ut-Tahrir regime, one could assume that Westerners would be saved provided that they converted to Islam.

'The West Needs Saving by Islam',
Raycom,
That's like saying we should put out the fire with Benzine. The West is hitting rock bottom but islam has already dug o lot deeper. Both suffer from the same afliction, utter stupidity.
When you see Australians in Bali then you can't help wishing for some Sharia Law but when you see Sharia law applied to victims of Islam than all you can do is shake your head & start crying. What moron came up with the idea that stupidity should not be a crime. It would have been a western academic for sure. I'd say if anyone were to be singled out as being the cause of so much mayhem then it'd have to be those who exploit western values. As I said in another thread, western greed in Australia has gone so far that people are more than willing to sell the ground they live on from under their own feet just to make more money. That mentality is what's causing the evil around us. Public Servants who are doing the country a disservice by only looking after themselves.

KINGS/=y=QUOTE..<<..Since such people,..when they read at all,
tend..not to read..beyond the headlines,..that particular..genie cannot be crammed..back into its bottle.>>

i sort/of got\to here
but read on

<<.But Mr Badar..is no pussycat,,,either,
and there/are many people..(me included)..who think
his views..should be better known..than they are,..[*..if only so they can be rejected.]

GOOD POINT/but\..im not into judging others
nor scape-goating..[blaming credit's..[honour]..through others

never the less...i feel i can help

those in\the wrong/may be known by their sign[..symptom]
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main

that little sins/hide bigger siNS
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

that/every evil/has its karma
that great evil/only\allows the grater-good..in its ending.
http://www.ghostcircle.com/ebooks/JSM_Ward%20-%20Gone_West.pdf

i hate/that some men/are so ignorant
that thinking functioning working women..so frifghten them

and tha some have so little honour
they murder other [god really loves what you did with 'your/life-gift'
ie took it..[all live but by gods will/who ARE YOU TO KILL?]

why is this even needing talkng about
the law re murder is clear

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-government-wants-to-control-you-idiot/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-confiscate-healthy-baby-born-home/
http://investmentwatchblog.com/sarajevo-is-the-fulcrum-of-modern-history-the-great-war-and-its-terrible-aftermath/
http://www.orrazz.com/2014/06/obama-wants-500m-to-fund-good-jihadists.html

Rhrosty, Obviously you know little of Islam. Your information about Islam is based upon distortions, misquotes and fallacies. Your quote that Islam “forbids the spilling of innocent blood” is just a wishful fantasy. I think the verse you refer to is 8:32 and you left out two-thirds of the verse and it doesn’t say what you think. Read verse 33 also, which tells Muslims not only to kill but also brutally torture opponents of islam. If you want a verse about killing for Muslims, try 9:111. As to Jihad, “personal internal struggle” is a new version invented the last few decades to fool stupid, gullible infidels. Jihad, or “making an effort in the way of Allah” requires one to leave home, says the person may get killed but it promises booty. Sounds a lot like ‘holy war’ to me. Also, check ‘jihad’ in the hadith – ooops, more killing and plunder, or look at any jihadist site. As to the crusades, any Westerner will condemn the killing. Now ask a Muslim to condemn the 60+ raids and battles by Mohammad against his peaceful neighbors, who where looted, murdered, raped and enslaved by a man Muslims consider a moral example. Figure out, if you can, what that means.

Yes, all religions have problems, but Islam is in a class by itself. It teaches hate and violence, discrimination and oppression. Yeah, Islam can save the West like it saved Islamic countries. Read the headlines. No wonder Muslims want out, but they come to the West, like Badar, and bring Islam and Mohammad in their hearts. People like Badar can stand on a pile of dead bodies – innocents murdered in the name of Islam, and still declare the moral superiority of his vile ideology. Your excuses about “non-revised” or “unedited” verses are silly. The Muslims that do these horrible things find ample justification in the Quran and hadith; they don’t need fancy explanations about edits or need to reinterpret verses. BTW, the Quran says it is easy to understand (verses 54:17, 22, 32 &40), so how can anybody misunderstand it?

To author Richard King [and others] –

I just last week started a general thread titled “Are we Really a “Multi-Cultural” nation? What does it mean?” . . . which makes attempt to get to the heart of this very madness that has again raised its filthy head in your article on tolerance and free speech etc.

I claim that the white Aussies who espouse to fully support equality and respect for ALL differing views and beliefs [mostly the LEFT, the loudest and most deceptive] IN FACT DO NOT in any real or actual sense do such a thing. That is, I note the main indicator to prove this which is how these western pretend equal rights and ‘moral relativism’ groups make open and loud claims that THEY [at least, perhaps not the righties] fully respect and accept all peoples of all differences and they make NO absolute judgements on right and wrong for ethics, religion or other; YET simultaneously they support fully with the rest of white Australia that the legal and moral apparatus in place in Australia [of European/British lineage] is TOTAL, ABSOLUTE, non-negotiable, the most highest and best set-ups . . . and also that NO hint at a thought to remove the system which ALL Australians MUST be subject to in life [and also increasingly too through international law, the rest of world MUST sign treaties etc. containing the same British/European ideals] shall be noticed or considered.

In other words when a person like Hiz-but-Tahrir’s Uthman Badar openly and clearly expresses in public forums that he believes “free speech is a liberal view” and he claims the western liberal “forces via imperialism or colonialism” their own specific European ideals onto the whole world thru Human Rights Declarations as one example. That lends Badir [he thinks] support when he claims “those who condemn 'honour killings' are based in the liberal democracies of the West” . . as both “accuser and moral judge”.

. . . CONTINUED . . .

. . . continued . . .

2 things here –

1) allowing someone to express a view, especially one you believe wrong morally, is nothing IF NOT replied to and debated in honest manner. I am 100% no leftists like Richard have EVER done this or even considered it as an option. Rather than debate him and argue no matter if it gets a bit sensitive Richard King employs the usual leftist avoidance tactic and instead praises this man he disagrees strongly with by throwing out remarks like Badar’s words are “academic prose” and “sounds like a potentially interesting debate”. Richard even states he wishes Badar to be invited back “in order that we can judge for ourselves just how dangerous his ideas actually are” which he says may need "a bit of heat.” indicating he understands that rigourous and uncomfortable debate may be required.

I wish to challenge Richard or anyone else to prove that they have EVER engaged honestly and critically in a debate like that with a person of non-white heritage.

2) Richard claims it is “very open-minded of the organisers to invite a man with such contempt [Badar] for it to come along and say his piece” . . . . .

. . . YET . . . I wonder IF these same “supporters” would ever invite some white man from Darwin NT to come along and speak his mind about how ‘he believes a women should be at home washing and cooking and having babies’?

NO WAY in HELL , and consider this – such a white bigot chauvinist has not gone as far to support killing his wife or daughter if they sleep with another man, NOR does that man force his females to cover their bodies and faces with sheets so that other men cannot look. BUT in comparison the Badar’s who alos have the women stay home and cook and clean and make NO decisions about family, but Badar also wants to kill his women IF she “dishonours” him [men define that too].

WHAT GIVES PEOPLE?

ABSOLUTE, non-negotiable,
Jottiikii,
Doesn't that prove one's as bad as the other or in other words the kettle is calling the pot black.
it's just about impossible which of the two major players is the more stupid.

The "Left" are more than willing to use violence to shut down "Right Wingers":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crftWM-CieU
The "Left" have more in common with the "Right" than they do with Islamists but do you ever see them picketing Hizb-ut Tahrir meetings or other conservative Islamic conferences?
So it's clear that Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, The Greens and Labor all support Islam, that they are scared of offending Muslims and are willing to let them behave as they wish and say what they want as well as shutting down any group who questions or opposes Islam. As I said in another thread, along with the Methodists and the other Left wing christians the "Social Justice" advocates are already living as Dhimmis under Islamic law so let's stop calling them "Leftists" and start using their proper name DHIMMI!

GrahamY –

You claim that the Islamic speaker on “Honour Killings” that was meant to occur, namely Uthman Badar of the Islamic organisation of Hiz-but-Tahrir, did “not necessarily defending honour killings, but taking offence at criticism of them whilst not criticising other things”.

You say you agree with Richard King whose own attempt to dissemble and scatter the truth of the man and his beliefs has him writing that “Badar's speech was going to touch on western hypocrisy. Badar's usual intellectual style is to combine reflexive moral equivalence with strenuous apologetics for Muslim violence and slurs against an entity he elects to call 'the liberal west'.”

Sure mister, that’s sounds almost maybe plausible if you really strain.


First it is utterly not true that Badar has ever or would ever state his official position to be as the above claim, “not necessarily” for anything in particular, BUT just AGAINST western ideals that often criticise his beliefs. ASK Badar to state his official position and DO NOT allow him employ NOT ADMITTING to something but only to NOT DENY it. Why else do you think Badar and folowers are adamantly against the liberal, western position of universal equal rights etc.

IF it is not so that he can then claim with some western understanding to support some practices in Islam the west abhor like fatwas on Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoonists etc.

GrahamY, you state such views as “Better to have these things out in the open where they can be exposed for what they are”

But I ask you, isn’t this exact position the traditional stance of those whom get scorned as racists, Islamophobes and bigots? Indeed if you think you have the right to openly tell Badar and others that you think they are wrong and those practices like honour killings are bad and should not be tolerated, WHEN is ANY leftist going to actually say this in public –‘
- further, if that ever happens HOW can explain the difference to any old rightie bigot [and do not rely on mere myth and prejudice, stereotypes - GET FACTS]

Jottiikii

stop using logic and reasoning. The 'progressives' just can't handle it.

OOG

'why is this even needing talkng about
the law re murder is clear'

Exactly. Honour killing is murder. Just as FGM is grievous bodily harm.

These are statutory crimes in the west - indeed virtually everwhere. If we are to shine some 'sunlight' on these crimes for the sake of debate, then lets get some rapists to write an essay for OLO about rape, or drug dealers about selling drugs, or Martin Bryant about the Port Arthur massacre, or ... you get the drift.

This so-called debate has become a hot cultural 'issue' because Islam has been made the West's official enemy, and therefore many Westerners have taken a side either for or against the demonisation of an entire religion for political purposes. So it's inevitable that hypocrisies manifest themselves on both sides.

I'm left wing in political outlook. Yet I too get very annoyed at the liberal stance that monstrous, criminal activities should be held to a different standard because they are culturally based. This is a stance that is by no means confined to the left - it's more of a liberal-centrist viewpoint.

True enough Killarney,
The rank and file Left do have some principles on issue like circumcision of infants where the right are utter cowards, the union covering health professionals in Norway want a ban on circumcision of children under 15 but the Conservative party are blocking the move:
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Norwegian-official-Jews-Muslims-circumcise-out-of-ignorance-332974
For the record, we didn't pick the fight with Islam, they sacked and destroyed the classical world and plunged Europe and West Asia into the dark ages, we've been at war ever since, only the tempo of the fighting changes.
Islam is the ancient and eternal enemy of the West, it's not something which was invented by G.W Bush and Dick Cheney.

I do not agree with what Uthman Badar has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

I support the death penalty and would openly advocate it, that is justifying violence but not incitement to violence. I support drone strikes on terrorists. That is justifying violence but it is not incitement to violence.

Each one of us believes there is a point where violence, even lethal violence, is justified. Examining where that point should be is an interesting topic. We naturally recoil from Uthman Badar's concept of where that point should be, because we instinctively know that his reasoning will simply be a demand that everybody should adhere to the dictates of his non existent God, and that he belongs to a religion which openly treats women as chattels, not human beings.

Let the fool say what he thinks. It is an opportunity to get inside the mind of a real Muslim and figure out what motivates him. It is also an opportunity to realise how dangerous and unacceptable the Islamic religion is. The claim recently made in the media that Muslim leaders are criticising Badar for his intended speech can be taken two ways. It could be genuine, but I doubt it, and there is a way to check.

Unless our "Australian" Imams firmly and openly reject Jihad, Sharia Law, the murder of Muslim apostates, genital mutilation of female Muslims girls, and child bride marriages, then I think we can deduce that this criticism is not genuine, and it is simply a PR stunt meant to reduce criticism of the Islamic faith, because of a fear by Muslims leaders that western people are finally waking to the fact that Muslims are dangerous and their beliefs are incompatible with a western democracy. That includes free speech. Muslims do not believe in free speech. We do. We are better than them because of it. And our society is better than theirs because we can examine all opinions dispassionately and base our conclusions on critical thinking.

BOY/THE BOYS ARE hot today

<<Muslims do not believe in free speech. We do.>,,

this is the royal 'we of course?
as in the general/name/IE THE TRADEMARK
[like mulsim/jew/enron-worker/tax avoiding corperation reaping win-fal
STATES/DEAD CORPWERATE ENTITIES SERVING THE DEAD WITH THE LIFE FORCES;BLOOD OF THE LIVING
WE CREATED A VAST CLAY goolum/monster/consuming humanity
http://nwo-patriot-link-news.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-corporations-became-people-you-cant.html


and yes/those/with shares[in these dead sySTEMS]<<We are better than them because of it.>>

TOO CLEVER BY HALF/THE PRIESTLY CLASS

And our beastly/priestly secular corperte state/society is better than theirs..because we[DEAD CORPERATE IDENTITY/can examine all opinions dispassionately./Oand base our conclusions on critical thinking..for maximal return/for minimul effort./credit due[we]/failure blamed on me

bet/wildly/put the winning bets/in your name
the loosing bets in my debt..too clever by far

press propaganda/spin merchants/and
dumbing down education/spiritual evolution\we search
you hide/we reveal/the firm conceals/yet all shall be revealed/reviled/who truthed/who d=lied

only the dead are cast without blame
demons took gods gift of life from them[its not we who meed explain.its youl;few elite

TRUTH/FACTUAL ACCES/GOOGLE SEARCH/exclusions/are working wonders[for the dead corperate states/looting the last cent/for an exclusive 144,000/who think they run things

lol

HA HA
all the bills fall over due
the dew lays heavily on the grass
reveal the true cost/reveal the true due.too.

LEGO,

That would require a free flow of information, an exemption from the anti discrimination laws and round the clock police protection for the people who speak out or try to debate Muslims.

Who is the spiritual leader and spokesman of the "moderate" Muslims?
It's not possible to debate Muslims or to show how stupid their ideas are because they don't listen and the state and the Dhimmis will shield Muslims from any criticism while hunting down and beating up or prosecuting the dissenters.
Anyone who seriously tried to oppose the fundamentalists would be jailed or killed,the Koran is quite clear on how dissent or opposition to Islam is to be dealt with, Theo Van Gogh spoke out and was dealt with accordingly.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/theo_van_gogh/index.html

Harry's Place has a good piece on this topic, featuring Badir...

http://hurryupharry.org/2014/06/30/defending-the-indefensible-honour-killings-and-the-limits-of-free-speech/

Quote: ...the organisation of which Badar is a spokesman seeks the imposition of a totalitarian medieval Caliphate in which dissent is crushed, homosexuality and apostasy are punished by death, women and non-Muslims are subjugated, adulterers are stoned, murderers are publicly crucified, and thieves have their limbs amputated.

The West is doomed. The fact that people can actually justify and promote a man that holds these vile, brutal views -- done in the name of diversity and tolerance -- is a sign of how low our culture and society have become.

Oh yes, another quote... The Festival of Dangerous Ideas are not of course obliged to provide a platform to views like these. But when organisations do, they should not be criticised unless they affirm endorsement. Bring the advocates of honour violence forward. Let them explain why women must be made to bear the honour of their family, while men are excused responsibility. And why this burden of honour necessarily requires women to forfeit their autonomy. And why they must pay with their lives if they resist. It may then become clearer to those disinclined to criticise any culture but their own how the lives of women can be considered so cheap that families are able to murder their own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters without the disturbance of conscience.

Badar has no problem with killing, if 'justified' by culture or religion....

A little quote the ABC 7:30 report last night --a Freudian slip perhaps, from the otherwise PC party-line broadcaster:

"It's a nightmare too horrible to imagine, but Iraq went down this road, narrowly avoiding catastrophe six years ago. This time, neighbouring Syria is riven by the same sort of conflict. Sunnis and Shiites fear an existential crisis is unfolding and that can bring out the worst in even those with the most moderate views."
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4038040.htm

<< and that can bring out the worst in even those with the most moderate views>>

So much for "moderates"--so much for multiculturalism!

To Jay of Melbourne.

I have on OLO strenuously attacked the Anti Discrimination Laws as an attack on free speech. These new laws mean that every minority group and their values, attitudes and beliefs (except white people and their values, attitudes and beliefs, of course) are totally exempt from criticism on the grounds that they might "offend, humiliate or intimidate" them.

Bringing people into Australia who really do believe that people who criticise their faith should be murdered, is the height of idiocy. The Salmon Rushdie affair was instructive. If the majority of Muslims living in the west were "moderate", then one would have expected that the Muslims in Britain who heard the the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa on Rushdie would have laughed the whole thing off. They didn't. Not only did every Islamic leader in Britain applaud Khomeini's fatwa, several of the leading luminaries publically expressed their desire that they should be the one who committed the honour of murdering Rushdie themselves.

Even Cat Stevens, the pop idol who was once acclaimed for his peace, love, and mung beans songs in the seventies, and who had converted to Islam, expressed his desire on British TV to the fact that he would kill Rushdie himself if the opportunity presented itself.

Muslims do not believe in free speech but it is supposed to be a core value in the west. That core value is now under attack by "liberal" appeasers who will do anything to try and make their "multicultural", socialist paradise fairyland a reality. As westerners, we cannot say that Uthman Badar should be prevented from speaking, now matter how offensive his views are to us. He has already sneered in the media "so much for free speech in the west" and he was right. This is exactly the "western hypocrisy" he claimed he really wanted to talk about.

Support free speech. Don't give the Neanderthal sod a free kick. Don't think like they do and say that he must shut up because we find his views offensive because they can use the same logic on us.

Onya SPQR.

Thanks for that quote. It is going into my files for the next time some ABC type claims that only a few radical Muslims are the problem, the rest of them are all just nice and peaceful.

Nothing like having a quote from your enemies to shove back in their faces when they get creative and try to massage the truth.

What was notable about the furore is how the usual defenders of 'free speech' (Bolt etc) were so vociferous in their condemnation of a speech they never heard. Seems free speech is only free for some.

Sorry minotaur,

I must have missed where Badar was taken to court and sued.

As far as I can see it is just the venue that was in dispute--I mean, if you really want to hear views like Badar's expressing you can go to one of the mosques or bookshops that hold regular anti-everything-West gabfests.