To Mr Patterson

I was not talking specifically about crime. I was saying that it is common sense that individual people can be judged in the court of public opinion by their group affiliations. I presume that you have no intention of inviting any members of the Comanchero Bikie club to your next party?

What usually defines any group of people is their culture. That is, their concept of what is their generally agreed upon concepts of right and what is wrong, and their collective values, attitudes and behaviour which is based upon those values.

Nazis are a good example. Most people are hostile to Nazis because of what the Nazis did in the last world war. They despise them for their values and attitudes, which are considered extremely racist and dangerous to anyone who does not posses a white skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Most people do not say that most Nazis are good people, or that it is only a few "extremist" Nazis who give the "Moderate" Nazis a bad name. All Nazis are universally condemned by the public because they are Nazis. Your premise that people should not be judged by their group associations is not completely valid.

It is not illegal to be a Nazi in Australia, and the Nazi Party of Australia is not deemed to be a criminal organisation. In Germany, it is. We are not talking about judging Nazis in a court of law, just because they are Nazis. We are prejudging individual Nazis in the court of public opinion because of their group affiliations, based upon the known values and attitudes of committed Nazis, and their previous behaviour. Prejudging Nazis, because Nazism is considered to be an extremist organisation which bears watching, is already being done by Australia's security organisations

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« I was not talking specifically about crime. I was saying that it is common sense that individual people can be judged in the court of public opinion by their group affiliations … What usually defines any group of people is their culture. That is, their concept of what is their generally agreed upon concepts of right and what is wrong, and their collective values, attitudes and behaviour which is based upon those values »
.

Agreed. I have no problem agreeing wholeheartedly with you as long as you stay on the road of common sense, if, as you say, that is your intention, but occasionally you seem to skid off course and slip down the slippery slope of crime.

You wrote, for example (page 4 of this thread) :

« Assigning collective guilt is quite valid, where the cultural values which define group membership are definitely a factor in criminal behaviour. All Muslims share collective guilt for the very high incidence of rape of non Muslim women committed in western countries by Muslim males … Racial profiling is also quite valid. Race specific crimes do exist. Serial killers are almost exclusively white males. Nobody knows why. Men who rape elderly women are almost exclusively black males. Nobody knows why. In this world today, almost every act of senseless terrorism is committed by Muslims »

I am just as happy to talk with you about crime or common sense.

The problem is quite different if we are talking about a common sense judgement as to whether some people are socially acceptable or not, or if, from a legal point of view, they should be qualified as criminals or terrorists simply because they belong to a particular ethnic group, class, religion, or community.

I am never quite sure if you are arguing from a common sense or a legal point of view.

I also have difficulty addressing your sweeping statements about Muslims, whites, blacks, etc., as if each group were perfectly homogenous which it never is. Each group has multiple, often antagonist, sub-divisions.

.

To Banjo.

In your original post to me, you seem to have a problem with my collective condemnation of all Muslims. You have submitted evidence which suggests that "ordinary" Muslims in France are appalled by the Paris attacks, and that "one blogger" wrote that "Muslims themselves must settle this problem and make sure it never happens again."

If the massacre of Parisians in Paris is an affront to French Muslims, and the Jihadis are considered criminals by the "French" Muslims, where is the collective outrage from Muslims all over the world? Especially from the leaders of Islam, saying that the terrorists are not the voice of Islam? If the Ayatollah Khomeini can put a death fatwa on Salmon Rushdie for writing a book satirising Islam, and almost the entire Muslim population of Britain, (including the "moderate" Muslim leaders and notaries like Cat Stevens) can vow for the honour of murdering Rushdie, one would have thought that the idea of a bunch of loonies repeatedly murdering civilians in Paris in the name of Islam, would have the Imams, mullahs and ayatollahs issuing fatwa's for the murder of the terrorists all over the place?

In Sydney, there have been incidents where thousands of Muslims have had violent demonstrations about the French banning of the burqua in French schools. A demonstration about the patterns on Nike athletic shoes resembling (in Arabic) the word "Allah". And about a pathetic video posted on Youtube. But three incidents of mass murder in the name of Islam in Paris, and not a bloody peep out of any of them.

Islam is a religion who's leaders are concerned with world domination. What is much worse, is that Islam's God, prophet, and holy scriptures all sanctify the use of violence and terrorism to attain that goal. I would have thought you were concerned about that also. All Muslims share collective guilt for the violence and terrorism committed in their name unless they and their leaders completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists, and refute their own holy scriptures. But they cannot, because that would be against their religion.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

We’re certainly on the same wavelength there.

I could almost have written your last post myself, except for the last two sentences :

« All Muslims share collective guilt for the violence and terrorism committed in their name unless they and their leaders completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists, and refute their own holy scriptures. But they cannot, because that would be against their religion. »
.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not radical islamists and have nothing to do with terrorism. They and their leaders “completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists” by their acts, by the way they lead their lives, if not by their words. Some speak out but most prefer to keep a low profile, afraid of the backlash from the atrocities committed in the name of their religion.

There is no "collective guilt" for them to share. They have done no wrong. There is only the collective mistrust, suspicion and sometimes hate of which they are the innocent victims.

That is what the jihadists want. The only way they can hope to defeat democracy and Western civilisation is by turning its citizens against each other and creating chaos from within. That is clearly their strategy. It is important that we understand that and resist it. If we don’t we will fall into their trap and do exactly what they want us to do : help them implement their abominable strategy by destroying our democratic societies ourselves.

We have already begun to do just that by changing our laws in what were once the world’s most free and open democracies, turning back decades of struggle for the respect of fundamental human rights. As the storm blows up and the sea turns black we batten down the hatches, pull down the sails, turn into the wind and rope ourselves to the mast. We are far less free today than we were just a few months ago.

The jihadists have won the first round - with the help of some of our own citizens - and governments.

.

To Mr Patterson.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims may not be legally guilty of committing terrorist acts. But they share collective guilt by virtue of the fact that they are members of a religion which not only claims it's aim is world domination, it is a religion that validates violence and terrorism to attain that goal. If anyone belongs to any organisation which openly preaches violence and terrorism in order to grow larger, then they are complicit in the acts of violence and terrorism of that organisation, unless they completely disassociate themselves from the violence and terrorism advocating principles which define the groups aims.

In addition, it is imperative that the leaders of that religion renounce those holy instructions from their God that compel them to commit violence and terrorism to spread their religion. They must also renounce the sacred texts that say that those who commit violence and terrorism for Islam are the best Muslims of all. This the leaders of this fascist religion have refused to do. It is insufficient for ordinary members of this religion to just shrug and do nothing. It is their religion, and the onus is upon them to prevent their religion being a serious threat to the safety of non Muslim people who's country they share.

There would be no so called Islamophobia without Islamofacism. All Muslims must reform their religion or be regarded as a collective threat to anyone who is not a Muslim.

Your premise that the Jihadis want to drive a wedge between Muslims and non Muslims is true. That is not just a Jihadi hope, it is a religious duty under Islam, and it is going to happen anyway. We have stupidly imported people into our societies who values and beliefs are diametrically opposed to our own. It is a religion which demands total social alienation from non Muslims, and that Muslims should use violence and terrorism to turn others into Muslims. Their leaders refuse to renounce this barbarism because they support it. And then wonder why we have a problem with Islamic terrorism

.

Dear LEGO,

.

I have never studied nor even read the Qur’an though I see I have one here in my library (in French) which I have never opened. I have no idea if it is a valid version or not.

Your description of Islam corresponds pretty much to some of the articles I have read about it except that I have also read that, like the Hebrew and Christian bibles, the Qur’an is often contradictory, affirming exactly the opposite to what it stated previously. I can understand how this allows the moderates, the fundamentalists and the extremists to justify their diametrically opposed interpretations of Mohamed’s words.

According to the moderates, for example, the Qur’an preaches love and charity and righteous living. Apparently it recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in the Hebrew and Christian bibles. They explain that the common elements and resemblances are due to the common “divine source” of the three sacred works.

I don’t think any of the Muslims I know have ever read the Qur’an either. They don’t seem to know much about their religion but most of them respect the Ramadan, particularly the women. Apart from that, they appear to be as little concerned by religion as most of the Christians I know. They were all visibly shocked by the recent Paris attacks and are convinced it has nothing to do with religion.

The police investigations reveal that none of the Paris jihadists are known to have ever set foot in a mosque in their lives.

I grew up in the Queensland bush, was christened and confirmed and served as an altar boy for many years. I never read the bible and only learned about Christianity from what the priests taught me as a boy. They never said a word about all the violence and sexual deviance described in the bible. I discovered that much later when I studied religion more seriously and arrived at the conclusion that there is neither God nor supernatural.

Nevertheless, I understand that Islam has no equivalent so far as bellicosity is concerned.

.