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 > The standard you walk past > Comments

The standard you walk past : Comments

By Vic Alhadeff, published 8/9/2015

Ismail al-Wahwah, spiritual leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, accused Jews of corrupting the world, describing them as 'the most evil creature of Allah'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hizb ut-Tahrir sounds like a vile piece of work whose views should be condemned. But not silenced.

If anything, this article illustrates the futility of trying to use the law to police racist speech. It is very difficult to make such laws work in practice. Inconsistent or arbitrary outcomes will give rise to suspicion that the laws themselves are not neutral between ethnic groups, or not applied impartially.

We should not “walk past” this kind of bile, but nor should we try to silence it. Better to call it for what it is, and argue back.

Shades of blue

I agree that words have consequences, the question is how we deal with that. There are laws against harassment, threats and workplace bullying. Where words have real consequences, there are ways of dealing with them.

We seem to be losing the distinction between what is morally and socially unacceptable, and what should be legally prohibited. We can’t legislate to make people nice.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 3:30:15 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
Rhian, Silenced is not the issue - life and death, sanity vs paranoia are the issue...hate speech/words in this case is calling for murder of the Jewish people simply because they are Jews!
Look at our history I implore you even if you only go back 70 years!
'Very difficult' is no reason NOT to change a draconian law.
Yes its correct to name it but don't dilute it by suggesting we should play nicely with those who call for our BLOOD - such people have lost all humanity don't you get that yet?
This law must be changed ASAP and please don't patronise me by suggesting that I want every one to play nicely together.....I would be bored to tears.
The police say it would be impossible to prevent a random attack in a crowded city. This moron will influence the vulnerable those with precarious mental health issues into believing that it really is the Jews who are the problem. Not to mention the traumatised population who nothing to loose and notoriety to gain.
Posted by shades of blue, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 5:55:52 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
Shades of blue

I am sorry if you read my post to downplay or belittle the appalling history of anti-Semitism and its consequences. That was not my intention.

I agree that incitement to violence should be outlawed. But I don’t think that outlawing racist speech more broadly will change the sentiments behind such speech. Such sentiment might go underground, or rephrase itself in dog-whistle ambiguity, or thrive on becoming a “victim” of oppression and the suppression of free speech.

Even more problematic is the assumption that Government and the authorities will exercise control over speech impartially and fairly. But even this article hints at the opposite – no anti-discrimination cases referred by the ADB have been pursued.

When it comes to constraining its citizens' freedoms, what a government purports to do and what it actually does can turn out to be very different.

Barak Obama summed up the problem well in a 2012 speech to the UN. He said the USA’s support for free speech is not “because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practise their own faith may be threatened”, and “efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3597890.htm
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 7:22:33 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
The standard you walk past is the standard you
accept. Wise words that can apply to us all -
especially those in leadership positions dealing
with community relations.

The solidarity of any community is enhanced if it
perceives a common outside threat.

Ismail al Wahwah, is the spiritual leader of a fringe
political group who called for jihad against Jews
to a large gathering in Lakemba after a public
rally in Sydney against Israel's bombing of the
Gaza strip. The words used by this leader
were hateful and disturbing. And the Jewish community
reacted. As did the author of this article Mr Vic Alhadeff,
Chief Executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.

See the following website:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/community-relations-commission-chairman-vic-alhadeff-resigns-after-gaza-furore-20140727-zxd9l.html

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others. All societies,
including democratic ones, put various limitations on
what people may say. They prohibit certain types of
speech that they believe might harm the government or the
people.

We have laws covering libel and slander, public decency,
urging violence, and speech that endangers life, property,
or national security.

But drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech
can be extremely difficult.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:04:50 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
Rhian:

"Inconsistent or arbitrary outcomes will give rise to suspicion that the laws themselves are not neutral between ethnic groups, or not applied impartially"

But we are already doing exactly that. Islamic extremists such as al-Wahwah are free to say what they wish, but any criticism against them is treated harshly and silenced promptly.
Do you honestly believe that any non-Muslim Australian will be able to say the same things about Moslems as what al-Wahwah said about the Jews, and get away with it?

I agree that it is difficult to draw the line between incitement and free speech, but without doubt al-Wahwah crossed that line and left it miles behind.
Posted by Avw, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:09:43 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
cont'd ...

The words used by Ismail al Wahwah are hateful
and disturbing but so is the ongoing treatment of
the Palestinians in the territories occupied by
Israel. This problem will continue to exist and
escalate until Israel recognises Palestine as an
independent state which to date Israel refuses to do.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 8:18:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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