The Forum > General Discussion > Pauline Hanson Is A Racists
Pauline Hanson Is A Racists
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 November 2024 8:12:18 AM
| |
The United Nations has a lot to answer for in multicultural-caused ‘racism’. It has stuck its nose into French affairs, criticising that country for banning women from wearing Muslim head scarves on the sporting field.
Mind you, the law on religious garb and symbols has been around since 1905 to counter the influence of the Catholic Church. No complaints from the UN about that. But, the UN “experts” (in what?) now say that the law goes against Muslims’ (nobody else's) “rights” to “express their religion, identity (not French apparently) and beliefs”. Why anyone needs to express those things while playing sports is not explained by the “experts”. It doesn't seem to have worried Catholics or other people whose religion is not Islam. There is no mention of complaints from Muslims, for that matter. Perhaps it's just more crap from divisive activists with their own divisive agenda, designed to cause strife and a bit of good old race/religious hatred among the French, 80% of whom support the law on religious garb, and also believe that Islam should adapt to Europe, not Europe to Islam. Fortunately, the French home affairs minister, who has the spine that the likes of our Mr. Burke completely lacks, has told the UN where to shove it. Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 3 November 2024 8:37:52 AM
| |
Dear Paul,
Why do some people deny facts? The answer lies in a deep seated psychological response that helps them manage information that makes them uncomfortable. It's a deliberate neglect of information that to them is too upsetting or anxiety provoking to allow into their belief systems. It's the only way that they manage to make things make sense to themselves. Hence the personal attacks on people they don't understand and see as their enemies. Hence their hatred of differences - and the list goes on. However, it is important for the public to get all the information about issues and not just be spoon-fed limited information and only one opinion. But as we know - it is a common strategy to try to neutralize what real scientists, historians, and even high court judges say - as in the current case of Pauline Hanson. The Judge has explained his decision. Anyone unable to understand it - could consult a legal expert or continue with more finger- pointing and personal attacks - which of course is far easier. Whatever rules your waves, or gives you an excuse for whinging. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 November 2024 10:56:50 AM
| |
Foxy comes out YET AGAIN against free speech that she doesn't like.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 3 November 2024 12:27:50 PM
| |
Talking about free speech?
Freedom of speech or expression is not absolute. In most Western democracies there are common limitations or boundaries which include - libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, to name just a few things. And, as we can see from this discussion, "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say whatever they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage". (Winston Churchill). In Australia - free speech does have legal limitations - as the Pauline Hanson case clearly shows. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 November 2024 2:19:32 PM
| |
Hi Foxy,
Those of the Trumpster persuasion simply see "free speech" as a vehicle to peddle lies and distortions to generate hate towards those they despise. For example mhaze wouldn't call out Trump as a liar for saying; "Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating peoples pets", clearly a lie, but that fits with his mantra concerning Non-Aryans. When it comes to free speech, I believe the Trumpster, like his folk hero Donald, is a disciple of the "Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda" all 19 of them. mhaze which principle is your favourite? http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Propaganda/goebbels.html Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 November 2024 4:17:30 PM
|
No the people you rely on to tell you what to think got it wrong. You just fell for it.
"FREE SPEECH is a great thing, and I am all for it, but its not to be confused with 'HATE SPEAK'. "
Hate speech is just speech that the elite hate to hear. Who decides its hateful? The fools on the left always think they'll be making those decisions - they're wrong. But being wrong is Paul's default position. Is calling someone Hitler hate speech?
BTW when did 'muslim' become a race?