Didn't we used to have a David Flint that used to participate here on OLO. Taught at Brisbane Grammar or something.

I like your second post, mhaze, but I wouldn't be as free handed with freedom of speech rights to people who shouldn't be here in the first place, nor anyone who thinks Israel should be wiped out.

Hi mhaze,

'Krystall Ball', yeah what can one say?
She's not someone I watch but I had heard of her before, years ago.
But it doesn't really matter where the story comes from, she's just passing the story along - the question is whether or not there's any truth to it.

I think this is where the story originated.
Grok needs more AI tools, when and where the story and events originated as well as trusted automatic language translations.

http://x.com/AbujomaaGaza/status/2046667480949539262
Eyewitness: Israeli occupation soldiers beat Palestinian hostage, strip off his ass, spray dogs’ sexual incentives on his ass and unleashed a dog to rape him..

Obviously it may be untrue, but it's not like detainees have phones to record whats done to them either, and I think if you take everything else into account, the whole broad range of systemic hate and abuse and lack of concern for human life I've seen from Israelis, as well as what one might also argue as 'a culture of wanting to inflict harm' then it's more likely to be true than unlikely to be true.

Some people like yourself will always cast doubt, deny outright, minimise, make excuses for, claim 'Israel is the victim' or that it was 'Acting in self defense' or trying to reflect criticism by blame others for being anti-Semitic.

Israel shoots kids for sport
http://x.com/OunkaOnX/status/2023691932174537195

On the matter of free speech and who can say what, we are in a grey war, and we shouldn' be giving succour to the enemy.

CM

There's a lot about David Flint in Wikipedia. In his late 80s, he doesn't 'get around much anymore' but his main claim to fame has been the his position of head of the Monarchy movement.

Despite the passing of the Queen, the idiocy King Charles 111 and his admiration for Islam, plus his woke son and next Monarch, he still believes in it.

He believes in it as a bulwark between the plebs and the politicians. But, since Kerr paved the way to get rid of the Fabian, Whitlam I can't think of anything done by GGs after him to protect us from some of the worst politicians to draw breath.

While the present High Court says hate speech is ‘political communication’, in saner times former High Court Justice, Harry Gibbs, found that the state is entitled to prevent from entering Australia people whose culture is unlikely to “integrate readily into society”.

That religious views are the primary source of cultural values is a widely accepted fact. Not all religions adhere to human rights (particularly for women; and minority groups like the alphabetics) nor the rule of law. Some of them don't promote democracy of any kind. The rule of law is absent.

Australian values are based on Christianity. It doesn't matter how or to what extent some Australians have rejected Christianity itself, our values remain Christian-based. Muslim immigrants' lives and values are based on Islam. They have little or no incentive to assimilate, because Islam and Allah are all-encompassing for them - they don't toss their faith aside carelessly like Western Christians are increasingly doing with their religion.

As it is now with the UK, Muslims will soon be demanding separate rights and privileges in line with their religious based values.

With Angus Taylor deciding that religion shouldn't be a bar to immigration, what about the Hindus and Sikhs, and the other religions that are increasing in Australia, while Christianity is decreasing.

With two years to the next election, Albanese can say ‘come on down” to many more hundreds of thousands of diverse religions/cultures.

The only party with a proper immigration policy is One Nation. They might even have a way to deal with delinquent judges.

ttbn with his David Flint extreme right wing reactionary views. The fact is the so called "Activist Judges" they can't tolerate are simply those members of the judiciary charged with the responsibility of upholding the laws and Constitution of Australia, separate from political interference. When decisions are made by knee jerk populist politicians which are outside the Constitution, it is ultimately the responsibility of the High Court to demolish those unconstitutional laws and directives. That is why the separation of powers between the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary is so important. Unfortunately, if impartial judicial decisions are not in line with their extreme radical opinions then they brand such judges as "Activists" implying they are motivated by some counter radical opinions of their own, and not the legality of the matter, how untrue.
Just like Harry Gibbs,the archaic opinions of these old reactionaries have been dead for 20 years, thankfully such out of date rubbish they aspire will never see the light of day again in a progressive Australia!