"Imagine if a religious leader stood on the streets of Sydney and openly called for the murder of people of another faith."

No, I cannot imagine this: non-violence is the first pre-requisite of religion, so anyone who does so could be a leader but cannot be religious.

We have already discussed this at great length, Yuyutsu. Religion has no such prerequisite.

"All people of goodwill have an obligation to speak out on these issues. We are either opposed to giving platforms to hatred and ­bigotry or we are not. There is a stark choice to be made."

So, Vic Alhadeff, there are decisions to be made and acted upon.

Firstly, to resolve the question of whether 'to give the oxygen of publicity' etc. to the speech.

Secondly, whether your NSW Community Relations Commission seeks legal redress.

Public money spent in the public interest would be one way of looking at it. After all it did occur on your Commission's turf.

Even section 18C is still available.

Dear Vic,

Expressions of bigotry and hatred are unpleasant and obnoxious. However, unless they present a clear and present danger, they are merely expressions of free speech.

We must distinguish speech from action if we are to have free speech.

The risk is there. Speech can lead to action. However, if we ban speech because it may lead to action it is equivalent to gaoling a person because he or she may commit a crime.

David f, a good and thoughtful comment.

I wonder whether Mr Alhadeff is prepared to similarly condemn those, including some on this site, who spend hours each day vilifying Moslems, going out of their way to insult everything they believe in, advocate their expulsion from the country and worse?

I wonder whether Mr Alhadeff might like to consider how the actions of those anonymous internet nutjobs and the undercurrent of anti-Islamicism that they represent may be playing a part in creating a climate for those like Wahwah to prosper?

Somehow, it seems unlikely.

As much as I hate these sort of rants that seem to encourage violence, I also dislike people of any faith feeling the need to yell out their religious views in the streets, or come knocking at our own doors for that matter.
The rant the author speaks of seemed more racist than religious though.

However, the fact remains that Australia is a democratic country and if people want to say these sorts if things, then they are able to do so.
The police may take note of people who do this though and perhaps keep their group's activities under surveillance.

The problem is that if the authorities start using 18C to police speech they will get a reaction, some people, myself included would be inclined to turn ourselves in for "speech crimes" and I'm sure the effectiveness of such a strategy would also be apparent to Hizb Ut Tahrir.
What such groups want is a crackdown, they want to be banned, they want to broadcast photos and videos of their members in handcuffs or in the dock. I have comrades who are involved in co-ordinated online "hate" campaigns at the moment, they have two objectives, firstly to rile up liberals and leftists, get them baying for blood and making threats to kill and secondly to provoke a response under 18C

Gee I don't know!

If they want to put women back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant they can't be all bad.

Hell if they took all these women off the roads there would be plenty of room. They wouldn't have to build another road for decades.

Where do I join?

The link I found to what appeared to be the video was broken. Has anybody found a working link?

I found the website for Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia at http://www.hizb-australia.org/#

I do wonder with their dislike of the west why they stay here but it was interesting reading their comments in IS and rejection of compulsion in religion. Be interesting to see other sources from them to see what contrasts there are.

R0bert

Not all religions are religious, some are just controlling cults or even murderous cults, without so much as a single saving grace or scrap of actual evidence, to support their inherently evil and murderous views!

They are like a cancer on the rump of civilization!

And the sooner completely excised, the sooner we can return to peaceful coexistence and civilized behavior; with our finest examples less than perfect, as indeed, we are!

Even so, it remains true that you can catch more flies with a single teaspoon of honey, than a whole jar of vinegar. Which is how our kids were radicalized to begin with?

[You like video games with guns and lots of violence? Come with me, I can show how to do it for real, and with your personal choice of weapons!]

Sounds just like the blurp we got when the S.A.S, were recruiting, doesn't it?
Rhrosty.

If they hate us so much why do they stay here? Do they all think Sarah Hanson Young actually puts out?

Cody you leave Sarah alone, she's gorgeous and I love her, we will lure her to the dark side and make her our queen.

R0bert, I think the ISIS recruitment pitch goes something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hPoOOhXg-k

[Deleted for abuse.]

Jay that just cost me 1/2 an hour. Started looking at videos about Jimmy Saville after that one.

R0bert

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Not all religions are religious, some are just controlling cults or even murderous cults,>>

Well, strangely enough people seem to make such errors as passing the said cults for a "religion" - they are not.

Religion is the process of bringing us closer to God, so if an organisation isn't doing that then why should we call it "religious"?

(those who do not believe that such a process exist, should for consistency claim that no religions exist)

If, as claimed by a member of this forum, religion had no prerequisites, then for example there exists the religion of "Macaroni-lovers" and anyone who likes macaroni can then be described as religious...

certainly warmist have become a faith based religion.Then again its not surprising as secularism/feminism has numerous faith based dogmas.

In 2002, a Victorian religious association called Catch the Fire ministries, organised a seminar on Muslim jihad which attracted an audience of 250 people in a community hall. Among the 250 were three Muslims sent by the Brack's Labor government's Equal Opportunity Commission who were primed to be offended.

One of the speakers was a Pakistani Christian who had fled Pakistan in fear of his life for being a Christian in a Muslim majority nation. He had lived in other Muslim counties and was well aware of the hostility and discrimination that Muslim have in their own countries for people of different faiths. As he talked, he cited passages in the Koran and Hadith that he said radical clerics used to justify armed jihad, looting, the killing of converts from Islam, the rape of captive women, lying for the faith, and more.

When asked by an audience member what should be done about Muslims he said "pray" and that Muslims "should be loved."

This was enough to get the Victorian EOC to swing into action and prosecute the Catch the Fire ministry for inciting racial hatred. The EOC had manufactured a complaint by sending Muslims who were determined to be :offended" and it would now be the prosecutor and judge.

Now, compare that incident to the one in Sydney where a Muslim organisation openly calls for Muslims everywhere to kill Jews, and that Judgement day can never happen until all Jews are dead. This is quite clearly incitement to violence. But double standard from government organisations can only be explained if one appreciates the concept that government bureaucrats think that Muslims are a minority that must always be protected, while Christians and Jews are fair game.

Yuyutsu,

I certainly hope you weren’t referring to me there.

<<If, as claimed by a member of this forum, religion had no prerequisites, then for example there exists the religion of "Macaroni-lovers" and anyone who likes macaroni can then be described as religious...>>

That would be rather dishonest. I said that non-violence is not a pre-requiste for religion, not that there were no pre-requistes. Rhorsty seems to have made the same mistake as you.

Ironically, it is you who thinks that macaroni loving could be described as a religion. Provided macaroni lovers think that loving macaroni brings them closer to god, that is...

<<Religion is the process of bringing us closer to God, so if an organisation isn't doing that then why should we call it "religious"?>>

But this is meaningless to anyone other than the individual who believes it until you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as a god (or no such thing as a god, in your case) and that it is possible to come closer to it.

<<Well, strangely enough people seem to make such errors as passing the said cults for a "religion" - they are not.>>

Most cults would actually fit the definition of ‘religion’ and satisfy what pre-requisties there actually are, at least: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Areligion

Do you need a refresher course in all that we had discussed in that epic discussion of ours? It sounds like you do. Or perhaps, as so many others seem to on OLO, you think that discredited claims magically grow their validity back after while and may be repeated.

You're free to have your own definition of religion if you please, but you don't get to then run around telling everyone else that they're wrong because of it.

[Deleted for abuse.]

'Now, compare that incident to the one in Sydney where a Muslim organisation openly calls for Muslims everywhere to kill Jews, and that Judgement day can never happen until all Jews are dead'

about sums it up Lego however secularism is to close to Islam for them to see it.

Hi folks,

Our LEGO wrote;

“When asked by an audience member what should be done about Muslims he said "pray" and that Muslims "should be loved." This was enough to get the Victorian EOC to swing into action and prosecute the Catch the Fire ministry for inciting racial hatred.”

Which of course is the usual crap dished up from this bloke.

After reviewing the transcript this is what the tribunal found Pastor Scott actually said;

“Muslims lie for the sake of Islam and that it is "all right", they have to hide the truth “

“People do study for six to seven years they become true Muslims. And we call them terrorists, but they are true Muslim; they have read the Qur’an, they have understood it and now they are practising it, that is the connection between the Qur’an and terrorism”

“Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation “

“That Muslims are taught that children should obey their parents, but if the parents are not Muslim, then children have a responsibility to mistreat them and to deal with them harshly, so when you are true Muslim, as you know David Hicks, you have heard of him, now he has responsibility to do that because he is true Muslim. So when true Muslim, you have to destroy your relative and so on, so that’s the commandment of Allah, you cannot just ignore it “

"That Muslims derive money from drugs, so they make a lot of money and they can spread Islam and fulfil their desire"

“That Muslims in Australia double their population in less than seven years. They are growing because they control the Immigration Department”.

This is vilification and incitement to hatred, not 'prayers and love'. Very little separates this from the hate speech at Lakemba.

SteeleRedux,

sounds truthful not vilification.

The question isn't really whether Islam is compatible with Western values, it is but there are doubts about whether it's viable in the West and the long term viability of the Western project itself.
You can't really blame Muslims for not wanting to integrate into systems which are failing and societies which are in decline.
For example if Western welfare programs are no longer sustainable then the Islamic diaspora will become unsustainable because on average between 70-80% of Muslims rely on handouts to survive in Western countries.