#armchair critic

Your following comments are offensive and objectionable and are totally beyond the pale:
"I'm going to let you in on the cold hard truth of who actually killed those people.
You wanna know who? I think you can guess.
That's right, You did it.
They did it to themselves.
Israel is responsible for the mess they find themselves in because they messed up from day 1 and made the Palestinians hostile."

These comments were compounded by the following further comments:
"You want to know one more time who killed those Jews just so it sinks in?
You did.
It sure as hell wasn't me."

Anyone who can condone the murder of a woman in her own house leaving six children without their mother or accept that a family of five sleeping in their own beds can be murdered - no matter what the supposed justification - has no moral compass whatsoever.

Incitement to murder and encouraging the commission of further murders amounts to racial vilification and incitement to violence.

If you had the guts to post your real name and address I would be more than happy to forward your comments to the Race Discrimination Commissioner to investigate and also to the police to consider action against you under the Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to violence) Bill 2005.

Name and address please...

Before responding to your comment I'd like to point out the irony of your lastest article in discussing free speech, and your immediate hypocritical display of behaviour when you now immediately attempt to deny my right to free speech.

My comments offensive and objectionable:
My intention was never to offend and I'm sorry that you feel that way.
On the contrary, I too find your constant arguments offensive and objectionable;
I feel they are consistently one-sided and that they display an attempt to subvert the Australian public with a biased and foreign point of view.

Let me be clear.
I do not start the discussions with you that I comment on.
I merely respond or react to that with which you put forward.

I am not racist.
If either a Jewish or Palestinan family arrived at my doorstep needing help, I would help them both.
If they were hungry and I could give them food I would feed them both.
If they needed fuel to continue on their way, or shelter for a night I would give it.
(So long as I felt that they were trustworthy and genuine and not dishonest people)

I want Liberty and Freedom FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just a chosen few.
And I want a system that is FAIR FOR ALL PEOPLE,
Not one where the CARDS ARE STACKED to give one group an advantage over another.

You are a bald-faced liar.
I have not condoned the murder of anyone.
Being a lawyer one would think you would pay attention to facts such as this instead of making false accusations.

You've just successfully proven yourself to be a complete hypocrite, and that you believe the rules you preach do not apply to you.

#armchair critic

Quit the squirming and protestations of contrived innocence. You haven't even got the decency to unreservedly withdraw the comments to which I took strong exception.

I still want to refer your offensive and racially inciting comments to the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the police for possible action against you.

I ask again - your name and address please.

That's not going to happen.
I don't see you admitting to or apologizing for making false accusations and you're a lawyer.
Its you that engages in slander and libel towards others, and I've been witness to you doing so on several occasions.
But I doubt you will take any responsibility for your own conduct.

If you wish to make accuse tell me specifically where I've made hateful comments or that I've made any call for violence or that I personally condone it?

You'd have to prove that I had intent to deliberately cause harm and you cant prove that because I honestly don't feel that way.

I don't ever have to answer any of your questions but I do have a right of free speech afforded to me where I can reply to your articles if I choose to.
The comment sections aren't about you challenging my opinion.
Its about everyone else responding to what you already stated.

Racial hatred is doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

Firstly, I don't make comments towards you based on your race.
I don't even know if you are Jewish, Australian or what.
I make my comments based on the opinion you first put forward.
I merely respond and attempt by balance your consistently biased articles.

I've stated that it's not my intention to deliberately offend, merely to state my opinion.
I believe everything I put forward has a basis to it and I often add links to justify my statements or line of questioning.
I don't simply make things up in order to vilify.

What happens when the facts themselves cause offense such as in the maps discussion?
Its not my fault you're offended by criticism of a set a maps that are more or less accurate.
Does this mean members of this forum aren't allowed to discuss these topics simply because you might take offense, which you consistently do?
Should you be allowed to hold a monopoly on discussions based on others fear of retribution?
How do we know when you're genuinely offended, and when you're using the law to stifle criticism you don't like on issues that form your agenda?

The Racial Discrimination Act also protects my speech.
It aims to strike a balance between the right to communicate freely and the right to live free from racial hatred or vilification.

Under the Act, one of the things that are not against the law if they are 'done reasonably and in good faith' is making a fair comment, if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief.

Therefore my speech and opinions are protected and I haven't broken any laws.

I can even provide links where other Jewish people state that diaspora communities have been called upon to 'engage in propaganda', so my comments are not in any way unreasonable.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-jews-urged-to-take-more-critical-line-20111123-1nuz9.html

Accusing someone of antisemitism or Jew hatred is libellous unless the accusation can be substantiated. In detail. The OLO spokesman for the foreign racist state of Israel has on many occasions committed this libel under the nonexistent umbrella of Zionist exceptionalism and exemption from standards of behaviour that apply universally. Perhaps he should reflect on the truth of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.