Robert, so glad to see you are still posting! You often make interesting points that get me to reflect.

on the intolerance of both sides of the fence, I agree with you. I'm generally of the view, that any law that curtails anybody's freedom deeply troubling. But, the debate around the racial discrimination law has really made me think about how much a society can and should tolerate.

The reason why I asked the question about the video clip was that it was a completely incorrect explanation of what happened. It had nothing to do with Islam as such. The man in question was not the conductor, but a mentally ill person who managed to get past security and onto the stage. I did not think it added anything to the debate of tolerance.

As to the Islamic religion. I agree with you that there are some deeply, deeply troubling facets and movements. I was lucky enough to grow up in countries with either Islam as the predominant religion, or the second largest. There are currently, many 1000's of Muslims being killed by other Muslims. Wish there was more focus on the effects of wealthy Saudi Arabia's evil Wahhabism on Islam in other countries. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is still viewed as a friend of the West by many. Wahhibism is a particularly nasty form of Islam and all the Maddrassas the world over are funded by the Saudis.

'Bogan", now that is an interesting word;
one wonders how many Bogans go through Bogan Gate*?

It would appear that the word is of Aboriginal origin and its current use surely shews a lack of tolerance of Indigenous culture.

* A town in NSW.

yvonne nice to see you back. I tend to be more sporatic in my posting now days, I think its because debates seem far more polarised than they used to be but thats subjective, perhaps I've moved a bit.

I do get bothered by the assumption that those with different views are necessarily less caring, less intelligent, more selfish etc. Often its about different ways of seeking similar outcomes. There certainly are those who's views ar dangerous when put into action, there are those who either because of uncaring attitudes or selective blindness don't really care about the harm the things they advocate for do to others but I hope they are mostly in the minority.

R0bert

Is Mise
“It would appear that the word is of Aboriginal origin and its current use surely shews a lack of tolerance of Indigenous culture.”

It also shows a lack of tolerance of people that the author may think he is ‘cooler’ than. There is no need to call others names with a view to belittling them and suggesting they are in some way inferior to oneself. Judging a person by how or where they live or by their social status or lack of ability to articulate something shows the height of arrogance and a deep sense of insecurity.

What if all bogans began to agitate for the government to create laws that make it an offence to abuse, vilify or discriminate against someone based on whatever characteristics make up a bogan? Surely they too have a right to such protection or is it only racist abuse that causes offence?

Laws that seek to protect only one type of offence are in themselves discriminatory. Who can tell what type of offence hurts and what does not? It is also the height of arrogance for one group to say their pain is worse than someone else’s. How do you measure these things? Laws should be based on the level of pain experienced in the same way they are in regard to violence. If you cannot measure these things then abolish these laws and look for a rational way to deal with this problem.

Laws should protect all human beings equally and not just those who are able to shout the loudest and bully the most effectively

phanto "Laws that seek to protect only one type of offence are in themselves discriminatory."

Where is the "protection" for those treated to a daily barrage of "Sissy!", "Geek!", "Teacher's pet!", "Mummy's boy!", "Brainiac!", "Loser!", "Fatso!", "Dimwit!", etc.

To Ian Nance

"Tolerence"s is not a moral absolute. If you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing. However tolerant I am, I do not tolerate a religion which claims that ecclesiastical law should over ride secular law, that the state and religion are inseparable, or that its religion should be spread through military force.

I am intolerant of a religion which states that husbands have a right to beat their wives, or that females are minors subject to guardian male control, unable to even leave the house without male permission.

I am intolerant of a religion which insists that critics of their religion, as well apostates, blasphemers and homosexuals, should be murdered.

I am intolerant of a religion which accepts child brides, female genital mutilation, that women should have no say in whom they marry, and that a marriage can occur without the consent of the woman.

I am intolerant of a religion which declares that men are subject to "uncontrollable lusts", and that women, by their behaviour and dress are responsible for keeping these lusts contained, and blamed for it if it occurs. I do not tolerate a religion which insists that allegations of rape must be validated by four male witnesses of the Islamic faith, and that a raped woman should be punished.

I am intolerant of a religion which says that a man may marry outside of his faith, but that a woman may not. And that a man may divorce a woman, simply by reciting 'I divorce thee", three times, but does not give equivalence to women.

I am intolerant of any religion which accepts marriage between first cousins specifically to keep property in the family.

Where do you stand on these concepts Ian? Do you tolerate them, or not? If you oppose them, then you are intolerant of Islam and an "Islamophobe" like me. If you tolerate Islam, then you are tolerating a religion which advocates these concepts, which as a liberal person you are supposed to oppose.