There is a case in Canada regarding (this is going to sound like a joke)

A Jew, a Muslim, and the Human Rights group....

See THIS video first.. and then lets discuss if this is simply one incremental step toward the worst kind of social control any of us could imagine...

Ezra Levant... champion of free speech..

"1984" might just have been postponed to 200?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0B-lYfYXmM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHrtlO5Hg88&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g&feature=related

"Social control" has been going on since the dawn of time. About the same time man discovered its value. I guess it's evolutionary. At first it was the 'gods', and 'our' impact on their moods, resulting in us starving or not. Then the bible. Popes, royalty and religious leaders have LONG understood the value of fear. Now that religion is seemingly (because of that other tool, the media) dominated by extremist nutters the average person turning towards a cocktail of 'religious' based values and calling it spirituality...not 'faith'. I guess that results in a social conscience.

I struggle with people's use of the term 'Orwellian'. It's over used, and its use is designed to create a negative feeling. In your case, 'human rights groups'. Go figure.

If you want my idea of 'Orwellian'. Try the 'new' terror laws. Circa; 'Inquisition'.

Appologies for the rambling and off topic.

In answer to your question, David, no. I read it as another thrust and parry in the long battle between the liberal, small-government, freedom-loving elite and the leftie, big-government, let's-look-after-the-little-guy elite for the hearts and minds of the majority, who quite sensibly, for the most part, sit on the fence. It's a battle that characterises and strengthens Western nations, and personally I enjoy it, cause I never know what side I'm on. I loathe censorship and think refusing to give David Irving a visa is a highly inefficient way of countering his argument. On the other hand, it seems to me self-evidently foolish to suggest that the government can't usefully improve the lot of its poorest and most disadvanted citizens, and I'm happy for it to direct my tax-dollar there.

So the middle-path works for me.

But to call this "the worst kind of social control" cheapens the experience of those who have suffered through the worst kind of social control.

And yes, I agree with StG (St George?), let's move on from "Orwellian."

But let's face it. This will become a long argument in which David employs capitalised patronising cliches - "DON'T YOU SEE?" - in great abundance. (No offense. But you will.) All with have prizes, no one will change anyone else's mind, and nothing will be resolved. Let me snip the ribbon for you.

I declare this ongoing and ultimately pointless conversation.... OPEN!

Thank you Vanilla for declaring this "pointless conversation' open ...
So I'm going to jump right in ...

Boazy, always ask the question - 'Why?'

Why did a Jewish publisher of a conservative magazine deliberately publish a series of Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that had fueled protests - some of them violent - throughout Europe and the Middle East? And he did it twice. As well as publicly insult Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

Why? To test the system? To provoke? For publicity? Or all of the
above?

My sympathies don't lie with Mr Levant. He sounds a bit too "clever."
He's a lawyer and I think he knows exactly what he's doing. And he's doing it deliberately.

In Australia the right to freedom of speech carries with it certain
responsibilities and restrictions which protect the rights of others to open hostility and discrimination. Australian laws expressly prohibit incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

Free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
as I've stated before in another post...

Foxy and Vanilla..(hey ur not that one hit wonder Vanilla Ice r u ? :)
and Stg...

the point of my discussion is really to highlight the major point in my mini 'crusade' against the evil and 'Satanic' (un)Equal Opportunity Commission.

You may feel that I won't change minds :) but be assured, there are many ways to skin a cat. (or a fellow poster)

Stg makes a very good point about the terrorism laws, but the only dangerous bit, (which is similar to the other 'hate/vilification' speech laws,... is that they 'can' be used to just silence legitimate expression.

All I want to persuade you mob of.. is this:

1/ It is NOT 'hate speech' to highlight and mention the horrific actions of either
a) Old Testament
b) Nazi's
c) Mohammad personally and Islam doctrinally.

It IS 'upsetting' speech I'm sure. I was chatting with my new found 'aryan brothers' :) (5 blokes all with German background at my Gym) and one of them said he was always called a 'NAZI' at secondary school here. Now.. I would take issue with that kind of speech.. its just bad.. they are NOT nazis.

2/ That any 'hate speech' laws must ALWAYS take the following into account
a) Truthfullness
b) Intent/Motive

if I succeed in persuading you all about that I'll be pretty happy.

Foxy..on 'fire' in a theatre.. agreed..BUT.. what about a person pointing to a discarded cigarette and saying "There is a fire hazard there..put it out" ? :)
Just like if a school for national socialists opened, it would be right to point to Mein Kampf and say 'danger zone' publically and forcefully.

How unsurprising that Boazy finds kindred spirits among the 'Aryan brotherhood' at his gym.

Might I suggest a visit to the quack for a prescription renewal? It was so nice when your medication was working...

What do they look like in their high-waisted shorts and tucked-in tank tops?

Or do they wear their lederhosen?

Must be distracting for you. Could you post some photos?

Boazy, seems to me that we accept that anything can be said or depicted in the media re Christianity and other religions without worry that we are offending adherents. The failure of most western media to reproduce the offending cartoons was peculiar. Maybe fear, maybe hypocrisy, maybe confusion over notions of freedoms of speech and thought.

Maybe posters here should state whether or not they have seen the cartoons? I have, and am disgusted that people died because of them; particularly in the knowledge that some Islamic sub-cultures have historys of depictions of Mohammad themselves.

That the weight of a western State is engaged to do the work of fundamentalist thought is worrying.

"Why did a Jewish publisher of a conservative magazine deliberately publish a series of Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad?"

WHY NOT?
WHY NOT?
WHY NOT?

Is it out of character for the media( generally) to lampoon religious icons?
Is it unheard of for the Arab/ Islamic media (&, even school text books) to lampoon jews?
And what is the offical Islamic take on Judaism: it is said to be a distortion, a corruption of the word of God.

Is it unheard of for Islamists to burn & deface our flag(read: secular icons)?

Are the criticisms of the Danish cartoons sensitivity , or , "apologism" , "appeasement" & hypocrisy, masquerading as sensitivity?

Boaz, the problem described in the video, and underlined by subsequent commentators, is the threat to free speech.

Your initial post could have been interpreted to highlight this, and presented a cause upon which you and I could fight side by side, shoulder to shoulder, against the creeping dead hand of bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, you can never resist the opportunity to turn it into the more familiar Boaz whack-a-mozzie rant, can you?

Shame.

But I guess, to a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Hello Horus,

Because, Because, Because...

Considering the sad history of the his (Jewish) people, I would have thought that Ezra Levant would have been more sensitive to the stereotyping of people from other religious groups. I know that caricatures, satires,ethnic jokes, are part of the so called "freedoms" of our society. But there is also a line that impinges on things like -
"good taste." That you simply don't cross. It's not a class act to do so. As I tried to point out in my earlier post - freedom of speech -
does carry with it certain restrictions if we are to have cohesion in our society. Put simply - treat others as you would want to be treated. Respect, Respect, Respect...

As Foxy said, there is more to that Danish cartoon controversy than was reported in the mainstream media.

It's old news now but as well as the unnamed players involved in the event and the behind-the-scenes political machinations (right up to the Prime Ministerial level), the actual motive was indeed to deliberately provoke a hostile response from the Muslim community. This was obviously successful but the reason actually doing this is not so apparent.

There was also some internal provocation from inside the international Muslim community to fuel that response - probably for the same reason - and both events were likely part of the same agenda.

Of course, you can just accept it at face value.

There have been a few comments on the Danish cartoon fiasco.

Here's a thought - how many Middle Eastern people had Danish flags before that? How many Danish flags were available to Middle Easterners? Could one go to the local "BigW" or "K-Mart" and buy a Danish flag?

Yet there were people all over there burning Danish flags in protest. Stage managed?

Actually Jack, you've hit the nail on the head.

The common perception, that the cartoons were published and there was an instant flare up, is false.

What actually occurred, was the cartoons were published in the Denmark newspaper, and at first, nothing occurred.

A muslim organisation, based in Denmark, protested, and demanded the newspaper retract the cartoons and issue an apology.

The newspaper, being devoted to free speech, told them that they had every right to publish the cartoons.

So this muslim organisation went overseas to the middle east, spreading word of these cartoons.

They still didn't get many bites at first, so they actually exaggerated what was in the cartoons.
Among other things, they made up some images of mohammed being depicted as a pig (particularly offensive to muslims given that they see pigs as filthy animals).

This was not one of the original cartoons.

This got the desired response. Once the riots and protests were underway, it didn't matter what the cartoons really were.

I guess it goes to show that while there are undoubtedly extremist elements that do react at the slightest provocation, it's not entirely as bad as people think - it does take some prodding to get this to occur.

On the cartoon issue.

Dunno if you guys have seen a site called MEMRI, but they highlighted the fact that fundi islamist nations CONSISTENTLY publish anti-semitic and anti-western cartoons. Stinks of overly sensitive hypocrasy to me.

Why take the moral high ground with these people when they don't give a flying......duck.....about you and your sensitivities?.

Perilous...I draw your attention to Stg's last post mate.

Forget about 'whack-a-mozzie'... the issue at heart here is indeed freedom of expression.

The case in point highlights this well.

Geert Wilders and his upcoming movie.... well if I'm not mistaken, he is an openly gay politician..and I assure you.. I would defend HIS right to slam into Christianity as much as Islam... even though it might cause me some discomfort at the thought of people lobbying to ban even the Bible.

I can envisage a day when this will be more openly spoken of and aimed for by the Gay Lobby... after all Romans 1 is definitely 'homophobic' in the strongest possible terms.

But I'd rather a society where not just "I" am free to criticize homosexuals or Muslims or Ananda Marga or Unionists, but where they are all free to rip into me or what I say. I think though, that the underlying issue should always be 'truthfullness'. Slander is still slander when lies are involved.

PALIMPEST... you covered it well.. 'fear' is the main reason the western press didn't display the cartoons.. and this is the biggest danger of all.. large numbers of any faith which is infamous for a bigger percentage of ratbags who are prepared to kill with a smile on their face, will discourage publishers who can be traced from doing much to ruffle the wrong feathers.

Boazy,

Freedom of speech is not under threat in this case I can assure you.
So rest easy. It's one side and the other "sh....t stirring" for their own agendas. And only people with further agendas of their own would buy into any of it. Let it RIP - as Vanilla accurately pointed out - it's pointless to do otherwise (unless you've got an agenda!).

Got it? Good!

Foxy,
“Freedom of speech is not under threat in this case I can assure you”
Shull! I was worried there for a while –but now that you have assured us, I guess it should be all Ok …

The reality is ( in the Aust domain) whatever the motives of the critic, it’s ultimately not about "sh....t stirring" & its not about “two wrongs not making a right” or any of the other nice little throw away lines .It’s about an open society: No creed or personage is above examination and (yes) even lampooning .

And, that’s pretty much the way it has been . Until recently, when there has been a trend where some positions have been deemed to be too holy (or, more likely, too threatening ) to be lampooned. If it wasn’t so serious it would be comical to see all the little lemmings rush to appease certain positions under the guise of ‘sensitivity’( In your own case I note, from your other posts, your ‘sensitivity’ doesn’t always extend to white/Anglo/western icons/positions… strange that!)

There has been a lot of talk recently about Australian values.
One of the foremost values – for anyone seeking to adopt Aus citizenship ( &, for those already here) I propose, should be the ability to accept their ‘sacred’ positions being examined & lampooned.

Dear Horus,

"It's a big big country but it's a small small world."

John Kennedy's "Love Gone Wrong."

Some people mistakenly believe that the public expression of racist attitudes is a legal and acceptable form of free speech. In Australia and internationally, the right of freedom of speech carries with it certain responsibilities and restrictions which protect the rights of others against open hostility and discrimination. Religion is such a sensitive area, especially to non-westerners as we know. So why
deliberately provoke people - in the name of "Free Speech."

Sorry Horus. I don't agree with you. As for my supposed "Anti Anglo"
stance... I'm not anti any nationality - what I am against is bigoted,
narrow-minded attitudes of certain people. And they come in all nationalities, as we all know.

Whenever this thread gets bumped to the top I get a fresh rush of hilarity.

Is there somewhere we can vote for most ridiculous topic title of the year

Foxy,
On another thread you criticised early settlers/settlement of Aust.
Now, suppose I didn't like to hear disparaging comments about our earlier
history.Suppose that it offends my nationalist sensitivities.
Should I have the right to silence you?
(not realistic?) Actually, in Turkey at the moment there is precisely this
scenario.There's a professor on trial because he talked-down the glories of their
earlier history.

In Aust, a professor is more likely to be ridiculed & outed for talking-up
the glories of the past.

Why deliberately provoke people– two points:
i) By-and-large a groups feeling of provocation will expand to match what they feel they can get away with. Are we are going to avoid confronting certain issues/groups because of how someone might react –what does that say about us/our motives(?) ,&
ii) Why is it considered ok, progressive even, to confront/provoke Western sensitivities, but not Ok to confront non-Western sensitivities (?)

Since you're fond of quoting famous people, here's a story from Salman Rushdie:
-When the Pakistani censors found that the movie El Cid ended with a dead Charlton
Heston leading the Christians to victory of the Muslims, they had it banned, until, they
had the idea of simply cutting out the ending of the film,so thereafter the
film was screened but faded out with El Cid mortally wounded...
It all goes to show , there is no end to sensitivities!

Dear Horus,

I think that it must be our different upbringing that results in our different ways of looking at things.

The early history of Australia's settlement was not something that I raised in another post with the intention of provocation. It was factual material (not cartoons) found in government files and archives for all to read. It actually happened and is part of this country's documented history - although some people refuse to acknowledge it.

Deliberately pocking fun of somebody's beliefs is a different scenario alltogether. And as I stated earlier -"Do unto others..." It amounts to showing respect for other cultures - which I don't regard as impinging on "Freedom of Speech," at all.

I find that arguing with you is really pointless. You go on thinking the way that you do -that's your privilege. Mine is to disagree with
you...

Vanilla... fudge... slice..

If ONLY it was as simple as a 'rediculous' topic.

If I ranted the way I feel I'd just go on an on :) as you by now know.

But why do I 'feel' so passionate?

Let me put it another way... how CLOSE do you think we are to being actually "controlled" by Islamic interests?

By 'Controlled' I mean where our politicians are living in fear of their lives from Muslims who can easily identify them and what they say, and then deliver not so suttle death threats against them for simply sticking up for freedom and the publics feelings.

EXAMPLE. "Mega Mosque-East London"

1/ Much opposition from the community.
2/ East London councillor speaks out against it (in a very gentle and restrained manner by the way)
3/ He is given a death threat on youtube, where he and his daughters are pictured with RIP attached! (now..If I could use 50 exlamation marks there...I'd do so)

So.. here is the problem we must be free to criticize and do so in an emphatic underlined, exclamitary way about such things, withOUT fear of being dragged off by the thought police to the local gulag, under some hate speech law.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23419736-details/Death+threats+on+YouTube+for+mosque+opponent/article.do

The person who put that video up..Abdullah1425 can be heard on other videos on youtube.. sounds like a moron.
THE POINT IS... this person could be tracked down.. and found/arrested/jailed. But...has he ?

Again..I re-iterate..the problem with 'hate speech' laws are when they prevent members of the community or media from EXPOSING the real source of religious hate...which is the Quran.

1/ 'Christian opposes the mosque'
2/ 'Muslim makes death threat against him and publishes his family photo on youtube.
3/ Where does this muslim get his ideas from ?

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

For a British Islamic justification for killing those who oppose/insult Islam/prophet.

( can't wait for Perilous to tell ME I'm 'selecting for my purpose' here :)

http://www.islam101.com/quran/quranYusuf/005.htm Is Verse 33 in the mind of that Muslim ? (please take the trouble to actually read it)

Horus, you're a classic!

>>No creed or personage is above examination and (yes) even lampooning. And, that’s pretty much the way it has been . Until recently, when there has been a trend where some positions have been deemed to be too holy (or, more likely, too threatening ) to be lampooned.<<

You are obviously referring to Harbhajan Singh's remarks to Andrew Symonds. Absolutely agree. Our cricketers - the archetypal sledgers from way back - have become a bunch of precious little mummy's boys, now someone has actually answered them back.

I assume you also believe that our slander and libel laws are far too namby-pamby - hey, you should be allowed to say what you like about whomever you like, right?

And Boaz clearly agrees with you.

>>we must be free to criticize and do so in an emphatic underlined, exclamitary way about such things, withOUT fear of being dragged off by the thought police to the local gulag, under some hate speech law<<

If only Boaz had explained this to Ricky Ponting before the Sydney Test.

Pericles,
Gosh! here I was sitting in a quiet little backwater , having a civilised little chat with Foxy, when look who should roll up…

Sledging wasn’t something invented by Ponting and his team.
It’s been going on for ages, both on and off the field .

What’s new is it level of reporting (wicket microphones) .
And its new found significance. (‘racism’& all the machinations that follow on from that).

If we (as a society) cultivate a- too precious- attitude, whereby every second word is examined for vilification , it eventually comes back to bite us . And, we’ve been well and truly bitten on the rear end by it on the cricket field, and, a growing number of other fields.

PS: I was wondering if part of our peace deal in cricket included us throwing (well, as good as ) the third cricket test (?)

Good Morning Horus,

You have had quite an effect on me. I couldn't sleep last night. I kept tossing and turning and mumbling, "Free speech..." and thinking,
"Why can't he see the point I'm trying to make?" So I'm going to try one last time...

To me, "Freedom of Speech" means that we're free, within bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately of publicly, about the Government, or about any topic. But, the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. And that was the point I was trying to make.

There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity, or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

Everyone laughs at ethnic jokes, at lampooning certain "icons." It depends on how far these things are taken.
I think most of us would find an image of a "fornicating Christ" offensive. Or caricatures of Jews(sick). Again, I repeat... Freedom of
Speech is not an excuse to harm others.

Jes' rolled up.

Wot' Foxy said.

"Hate Speech-Are Human Rights groups the forerunner to ORWELLIAN social control ?"

................come to think of it...?;-look at the title. The first two words.

"HATE speech". Thanks for the clear acknowledgment BOZO.

You want a free reign on that do you? OF COURSE YOU DO!!

Hallelujah Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

Dear Foxy,
I apologise for my contribution to your sleepless nights–treat it as a friendly chat.
( why was it so absolutely necessary that I come around to your point of view on this issue?)

The cartoons were not illegal under existing Danish or Aust laws.
They weren’t even out of the ordinary ( by subject matter, or artistically)

And, as TRTL so succinctly pointed out in an earlier post , would have likely been quickly passed-over if a few firebrands hadn’t staged a beat-up.

If you tighten-up the laws to protect Muslim sensitivities, you’d ( being fair minded) no doubt want to do the same for every other group – including white settlers(!)

Unless of course, you favoured that (innovative) two-tiered system of Sharia law, advocated by the anti-cartoonists, whereby Muslims have all rights over the rest of us second class, non-Muslim, dhimmi.

Important point: You seem sold on the proposition that if it’s true, its Ok. Well, many of the religious ‘histories’ & CVs of the Middle East have been fabricated.
Official media only carry the approved Mickey Mouse versions . The anti-cartoon brigade would find any attempts to air the truth, equally as unpalatable.

Had we given-in on the cartoon issue it would not have been the end of anything.
There are dozens of other potential provocations:
- support for Israel in any way shape of form,
- giving sanctuary to any Rushdie or the like
- aid for the Sudanese rebel south .
it would have only whetted their appetites

( why, was it so absolutely necessary that I come around to your point of view on this issue ?)

Funny how it's not hate-speech for an Indian to call one of our cricketers a 'monkey'. Oh, of course, only a White can be guilty of hate-speech.

Dear Horus,

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that you had to come around to my point of view. I thought I was being logical and I was simply frustrated that you couldn't see the point that I was trying to make.

In other words I was being self-righteous and childish ... (a fault I'm prone to indulge in - as you so rightly pointed out).

I'll try not to be as obstinate (until the next time - smile).

Still friends, I hope?

Boazy,

I thought the role of mature free thinkers is to reach for common dialogue. What would the world come to if Jews criticise Muslims, Muslims criticise Christians and Christians criticise Bhuddists (no room for Jewish criticism since its illegal to do so:-)).

We should promote what brings us together, the planet is in danger and global warming, shortage of water are 'here and now' dangers. Want a proof? one tsunami wave generated enegery equivalent to thousands of nuclear weapons.

PS: I am in Melbourne around mid Feb. Fancy a coffee at Maccas in Swanston? (Don't panic I won't force a 'halal' coffee down your throat:-))

Peace,

FH