Yes Marko but they don't have a right to use a taxpayer funded forum to express those expressions of hate; nor do they have a right to indoctrinate innocent others with their obscene expressions of unrivalled hate or advocate ritual beheadings, gang rape or harming the entirely peaceful innocent!

In my view what they advocate be visited on innocent others, should be reserved exclusively, just for them!

If they were the ones required to shoot the guns someone else had loaded; and in harm's way, they'd likely have far less to say!?

So as you sow, so also should you reap.
Rhrosty.

Marko: The racist and neo-fascist groups are led by a small collection of buffoons.

Their arguments are outlandishly absurd and widely seen as being so.

One could argue that racist and neo-fascist groups, such as the United Patriots Front and Reclaim Australia,

A racist grouping, consisting of a neo-fascist presence, known as "Reclaim Australia,"

The real purpose behind these protests is the restoration of a racist, thoroughly socially conservative, white Australia that history has long passed by.

that racist groups engage in violent acts, that indeed such acts of violence are an intrinsic part of their modus operandi and so these groups need to be confronted.

Many of the everyday participants of Reclaim Australia are lowly working class people, if not part of the urban and rural underclass, that have been hard hit by globalisation.

The racist and neo-fascist groups are led by a small collection of buffoons.

For the racists and neo-fascists national exposure is golden, and the granting of it by the Left constitutes a significant victory.

Well done Marko, I couldn't have written a better take on Mark Antony's speech if I tried. "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Marko: Let us assume the worst of Zaky Mallah. That is that he was a jihadist, is a jihadist, and used the bully pulpit of ABC Q&A to promote the jihadi worldview. That is to say he spoke in favour of radical Islamist ideology which included a generalised call for a jihad to set up an Islamic Caliphate that covers the entire Muslim world.

We don't have to assume the worst. He has shown us just what he & his breatheren are on about. I'm in favour of Mallah appearing on Q & A It allows people to see just what the moslem, including moderates, want to force onto Australia, indeed not only the moslem World. They, including the moderates, have stated so many times.

Well I think of the money that the tax payer has to fork out to pay for police in attendance. Islam is a monothesist religion, and quite honestly like certain Christian sects they have their fanatics. But anti-Islam is growing around the world. It is the Sharia laws they want to bring into an adopted culture that people don't like. We are not a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But IS or ISIS is not or should not be associated with main stream Islam, anymore than the KKK should be with Christianity. Look at Israel. You have the liberal Jewish people and then the Jewish sect that is very very strict in comparison.

In Australia State laws over-ride any religious law, as religion is separate from State. Personally when I was young and living in UK, my family were Roman Catholics and my father would not let me join the Girl Guides run by the Anglican church because it was necessary for me to attend church.
A historical hangup from Henry VIII day.

As far as these riots. Both sides to me are ignorant, it is not racism it is religious bigotry. Paul Hanson saying she feared the spread of Islam. Shhhhht.

I think the wearing of the full cover of face and body, not the scarf which is pretty I think, is an insult to us women who do not cover our faces and don't kid yourself, some Muslim men do view women who do not as morally loose and not God fearing (in their religious and cultural views) but we are not living in Saudi Arabia.

Bush Bunny, "don't kid yourself, some Muslim men do view women who do not as morally loose"

The defence of veils and those all-covering tents was waged by the women themselves, by feminists and by the Left. The women wanted them and it was their 'right' they said and still do.

Just as the strength of the Roman Catholic Church was (and is) due to the devotion of women, who rule in the home and make their children and spouses go to Sunday Mass, so too it is the women who are the strength and backbone of Islam, fundamentalist Islam too.

As I might see it, a psychiatrist is necessary to explain the apparent 'oddity' (to be diplomatic), but at the end of the day 'tent rights' rule and that applies even where others are obliged to remove apparel and publicly display identity before entry

What an uninformative load of nonsense, Marko, aimed at ensuring free speech for seditionists, jihadists and other undesirables
“The real purpose behind these protests is the restoration of a racist, thoroughly socially conservative, white Australia that history has long passed by.”
You do not know that.You only went to the lefty meetings. Reclaiming the Australian way of life from Islamists has nothing to do with the colour of their skin, but with their fanaticism in their attempts to distort and disrupt our society. It does not constitute a basis for you to concoct your dishonest, baseless slogans.
Do you also want free speech for paedophiles and murderers?

Paedophiles and murderers already have it Leo, if last nights 60 minutes is anything to go by.

I was at the Melbourne Rally from start to finish, outside the line at the top of Little Bourke St where all the mischief occurred, I'm happy to take any questions about what occurred.
One interesting observation I'll make straight off the bat, pepper spray actually tastes like pepper.

Marko, George Christenson MP adapted some words of Ronald Reagan to sum up the approach of Reclaim Australia:
“Our voice says: “We will not surrender.” We will not sit idly by and watch the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle that we love and that is envied around the world be surrendered and handed over to those who hate us for who we are and what we stand for.”

Certainly more accurate than your fly-blown dishonest attempt.

The article in my opinion was an eloquent defense of free speech. Free speech must be extended to those one disagrees with and whose views one despises or we don't have free speech.

As Marko writes, "One is in favour of speech for views one despises for otherwise one is not in favour of free speech."

It really is that simple.

Taste like pepper JOM? so do those pesky little flies that swarm in their millions around your eyes and mouth, just a day or two before the rain comes!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty: so do those pesky little flies that swarm in their millions around your eyes and mouth, just a day or two before the rain comes!

Only when ya talkin' $#!t. Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

Davidf: As Marko writes, "One is in favour of speech for views one despises for otherwise one is not in favour of free speech."

I agree too. Otherwise you have no idea what the other side is on about. Especially if they are screaming their $#!t at counter rally's.

On the beach, you haven't lived in a country where there are Muslims, eh. The head scarf is nice I think, and as far as I am concerned covering yourself up completely and always with a male attendant,(as we see in supermarkets in Australia) is unnecessary in Australia. But it is a personal choice I suspect. I lived in Cyprus and was sexually harassed and attacked by Muslims once walking with my Mother! They grabbed my boobs or boob.
One never walked alone at night or even during the day (as The Greek Orthodox never allowed the single girls/women out alone), they had to be accompanied by a man or the Greeks allowed two girls/women OK during the day. But in the Turkish quarters, it was dicey even being with a group of boyfriends in a night club, or on a beach with a boyfriend wearing a bikini. We got stared at. They saw us single women as open to harassment being with a boyfriend if we were unmarried. I married in Cyprus to an RAF officer, and we had to go through a civil marriage service in Limassol where I lived, and one on the SBA RAF Akrotiri where he was stationed. Otherwise, under their laws, us living together wasn't legal. (I often wonder if they noted our divorce or are we still legally married under their laws, LOL)

What's so precious about free speech?

What's so special and sacred about talking, loudly, as opposed to all other actions that are currently restricted?

It's not really about the freedom to talk and say things, because one may already say whatever they want and whenever they want in their home and in the company of their friends and family - it's all about saying the same in public spaces where others can hear, including others who do not wish to hear your words, including those who would be offended by them.

In other words, it's all about the freedom to disturb the peace of strangers. Why for example is urinating in public not tolerated, yet speaking loudly words of a similar quality into the ears of passers-by is considered a sacred cow?

Further, the "freedom of speech" is considered a last resort to scream for help in anguish over government brutality, but doesn't it indirectly justify that same brutality? Doesn't it allow the government to maintain the attitude of: "if you have been wronged and oppressed by us - then go ahead and scream! Nothing would change of course because we never listen anyway, but now the responsibility would become yours for not screaming loud enough and failing to convince enough voters".

Let there be true freedom and non-interference in one's private life and on one's own premises and let no one be forced to leave theirs and enter public spaces, then there would be no need to extend similar freedoms to public spaces where people voluntarily visit for mingling with others peacefully.

I agree that genuine free speech means that neither racists nor jihad supporters should be silenced. But I still think Q&A showed poor judgement in inviting Zaky Mallah to participate in the show, for the same reason I would not support it inviting know racists to spout their views. There is a difference between freedom to say something and being invited to propound it at the taxpayers’ expense.

Bush bunny,

Sadly, Islamic fundamentalism is not restricted to the men.

Rhian: I would not support it inviting know racists to spout their views.

Why not. They have & are entitled to tell you their point of view, just as the Jihad's are. I have said before. Unless you hear what they have to say then you cannot form an opinion. If you have a personal opinion then it may be a preformed opinion & may be wrong based on your own prejudices.

Some things the other party says may be correct. If you chose to reject that based on your own prejudices then you are at fault. Whichever side you are on.

I embrace Democracy, yet I know that some things about it can be exploited by the rich & powerful. There are things about Communism that would serve people better than Democracy. Weighing it all up there is much more about Communism I don't like, so I go with Democracy. Seeking to change those things that need to be changed for the betterment of all people.

The crux of the matter is that you must be able to hear & listen to the other argument, quietly, to form a properly balanced opinion.

Maybe Reclaim Australian are not Racist, maybe they are protesting about moslems being Racist. Isn't that Racist?

As their "Religion" says that all moslems must kill the unbelievers where ever they find them. All moslems are devout, so they must do as their Koran says.

Hi Jayb

I agree racists should be free to spout their views, but not on Q&A. It’s a question of the kind of program Q&A wants to be. If it wants to attract serious players – senior politicians, internationally recognised experts etc. – to discuss real issues of the day, it needs to set some standards. It can’t spend too much time dabbling in the ideological fringes, or inviting questions from audience members who are patent fruitcakes, or giving a platform to advocates of gang rape such as Mallah.

Forums such as Online Opinion are great for airing a diversity of views and prompting lively debate. Q&A is a different genre and should have different quality control standards.

Rhian: Q&A is a different genre and should have different quality control standards.

Do you mean it's sort of upper class & toffee nosed & should concern it's self with those "unmentionable" things?

On which other programmes, on what Channels, do you think it would be appropriate to Air these "unmentionables?"

The ABC is only watched by those who think they are Upper Class & above the Common Riff Raff & Fanatics of one sort or another. My experience on going to "Getup" Conferences. Ok, some Bogans do, but only to watch Dr. Who & some Comedies.

Rhian: It can’t spend too much time dabbling in the ideological fringes, or inviting questions from audience members who are patent fruitcakes,

Now Rhian, you can't have it both ways. The only people who audience these Programmes are the Ideological fringe & Fruitcakes.

I'll have to disagree with you on this. Having the Toffee Nose & the Fringe element on these Programmes is a good thing because it allows the Bogans (their opinion of us) to make an informed opinion based on the Loonies or the Panel. If we ever watch the Programme, that is.

So, According to Mr Beljac, people concerned about Islamization are buffoons, racists and/or neo-fascists (group A), for whom “acts of violence are an intrinsic part of their modus operandi”

On the other hand, the people of the left wing coalition (group B) are peaceful wonderful idealists, virtuiously acting against all those horrible people in the first group. Well, except those that want to use preemptive violence against A.

I will bet that on any day of the week, on any hour of the day, the group A folks are more peaceful and rational than Beljac’s intellectual buddies in group B.

In case Mr. Beljac doesn’t know: 1. Islam teaches hate and violence against nonMoslems. That is what the Quran is all about. 2. Islam also teaches that Mohammed, -- a man that attacked his neighbors for 10 years and committed all kinds of atrocities, is a great moral example. Figure out, if you can, what that means. 3. Everywhere Islam dominates we see human rights abuses and lack of freedoms, and ill treatment of nonMoslems (see preceding items 1 and 2). 4. Worst of all, Muslims are never honest about their religion. They make excuses and blame others. They never apply to themselves the moral standards they demand from others.

Remember, Mr. Beljac, the so-called good Muslims have no problem with the hate and slander against unbelievers in the Quran nor do they condemn the acts of murder, looting, rape, torture enslavement of men women and children by their dear prophet. That is why the “good” Muslims are little different from Zaky Mallah, except that Mallah is more honest about Islamic doctrine.

Last of all, you would think that a PhD would at least read his own article before posting it, or afterwards. It is a confused jumble of repetition and nonsense, with the cartoonization of one group (A) only surpassed by the foolish unfounded idealization of those with whom he sympathizes (B) and the ignorance of Islam’s doctrines and practices.

kactuz

you demonstrate why the regressives are actually more violent and dangerous than the Islamist. Blind ignorance and academia go hand in hand these days. As long as your outcome fits the regressives narrative no matter how irrational you can speak from 'moral'superiority. Regressives are able to redefine the term unborn baby as in unhuman in order to kill that child, so why would not they redefine albeit dishonestly so many other terms.

Hi Jayb

You say “The only people who audience these Programmes are the Ideological fringe & Fruitcakes.” After watching Alan Jones and Jacqui Lambie on last night’s programme, I may be coming round to your point of view! More seriously, yes, there is an element of elitism about Q&A, and while I sometimes find its smugness irritating and its ideological biases unfortunate, there is a role for this kind of program.

There are plenty of forums where less mainstream views can get an airing. This is one of them.

Runner, Exactly what is untrue in my statement?

Do you think I am more violent than people that love a man who proudly stated "I am made victorious with terror"? Do you think it is wrong to speak out against an ideology that causes pain and suffering everywhere? Do you consider that to be violence?

Tell me, why do you think so-called normal Muslims travel thousands of miles to join the Islamic State? Why do "good" Muslims suddenly decide that killing infidels is required of them? Could it be because that is what the Quran teaches?

So what do you expect from a religion that teaches that its faithful are put on earth to kill and be killed? Do you recognize that quote from the last sentence?

Runner, I have been saying here at OLO that Islam is a vicious ideology for 10+ years. That is long before ISIS, BokoHaram, and much of the current troubles caused by Muslims -- and Muslims continue to kill each other (and us) by the thousands. Why? because that is Islam and that is what their dear prophet did. Note that he even ordered an attack on a mosque filled with women and children, for "unbelief". So why should we be surprised by a Muslim terrorist blowing up hundreds of Muslim children drawn to an icecream truck, as occurred this last weekend

So exactly where is the ignorance in my statement?

As to killing unborn babies, that would be a liberal thing, wouldn't it? You know, the kind of people in that progressive meeting you went to...

Moral standards are absolute. Evil is evil. Period.

The problem with Muslims, is they have been fighting themselves since it was conceived in 600 AD. Leaders have been assassinated even genocide of other Muslims. The fight for dominance goes on between the various sects, and their interpretation of how they should live their lives. I'm sorry to say having read the history of their religion, it seems so typical of the Christian fights and crusades, and persecution of different Christian churches.

Muslim women have been dominated by a paternalistic society. The educated ones can not understand how some women blindly favor male dominance and dress codes. It reminds me of dominated women during the 70s in answer to Women's Liberation movement. "I don't want to be liberated' All of them married. They didn't understand what it meant to be free of the 'bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen' belief. And of course equality in wages, work place etc. Free from domestic abuse and sexual harassment/abuse. Anyway these shockers do not present free speech, if they violently attack those who have a different opinion. That's fascism in my mind.

Bush bunny,

It is Islam that is the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEcBzxoMB8

Marko,

I agree that people should be allowed to express their views. However, there should be limits for certain things such as the distribution of child porn, or the calls for others to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes. For example people can express their opinion for example that rape or jihad should not be a crime, but

Remember also that freedom of speech does not guarantee access to mass media, and it also includes the right to remove oneself from discussions.

Remember also that freedom of speech does not guarantee access to mass media,

But the Media lap it up. It sell papers & Air Time on TV.

Shadow Minister: and it also includes the right to remove oneself from discussions.

Yes, there is that right. The "I don't want to talk about it. I might have to think." attitude is something I don't understand.

Shadow Minister: For example people can express their opinion for example that rape or jihad should not be a crime,

Yes they can & a discussion ensures. The call for people to "commit" Rape or Jihad is a different story, that should be a criminal offence. (I thought it was already.)

Thanks Marko,

I didn't know this:

Noam Chomsky, another noted anarchist activist, observed that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards."

And I didn't think I would ever agree with Chomsky, but there you go. But he could have bracketed 'Stalinist/fascist/Islamist standards.'

Isn't it strange, that the opportunist left defend a tyrd like Mallah, and his right to free speech, but condemn Andrew Bolt for a lot less, for being a lot more accurate ?

I suppose, whatever works as a stick up the @rse of (a) Abbott and/or (b) the neo-liberal, capitalist system. [I was about to insert 'patriarchal' in there, but I realised that opportunist left 'feminists' are going very easy on 'patriarchal' when it comes to Islamists these days.]

So what are the limits of free speech ? Does it include the right to lie about other groups, to offend, to insult, [draw your own line in the sand], to humiliate, to incite against, to attack, to urge violence against ........

Where is YOUR line in the sand, dear reader ?

Joe

Yes Loudmouth the left hate Bolt because he often exposes the fraudulent and dishonest nature of their arguements and dogmas. Bill Shorten will now be credited with and made a hero for his turning back the boats policy.

Joe

Good question – very few of us who think we support free speech actually support unlimited free speech. These are my lines in the sand:

1) Defamation: lies told about a person that can cause material harm to them(under Australian law truth is not necessarily a defence against slander/libel, but I think it should be)

2) Incitement to violence.

3) Pornography involving children or violence.

I’d add two qualifiers.

Organisations have the right to impose restrictions on their members or employees to the extent their public pronouncements affect the organisation’s interests. You can't be head of the Boy Scout movement and use your Facebook page to advocate paedophilia.

Simply because saying something is legal doesn’t mean it is acceptable or can be said without sanction. Racism, sexism, Islamism are wrong, even if speaking them is not illegal. These are social evils and should be met with social, not legal, sanctions.

runner: Bill Shorten will now be credited with and made a hero for his turning back the boats policy.

Be careful here. Have a close look at what he actually said & you'll find that all is not what it seems.

Cutting to the quick. He intimated that turning back the boats was one of the possibilities the Labor Party will look at. He did say that it "would" be Policy.

Never jump to conclusions on anything a Politician says.

Smarmey B@$t@rd$!