Yep...I believe "Human Rights" groups are probably one of the worst influences in the modern world.

In the name of 'human rights'.. so many 'rights' are trampled on!

-CULTURAL RIGHTS.. by allowing migrants here without discrimination based on "creed" we are vulnerable to those who come here with creeds which seek to destroy our culture. Camden NSW is currently facing the problem of an Islamic School to be established in the area. The group behind the school is the "Quran society" which comes from 42 Haldon St Lakemba.. the location of the most radical Islamists in Australia, and where a number of convicted terrorists went for 'spiritual guidance' including Salleh Jamal. The Quranic society appears to be a front for Saudi Wahabi interests.

-IDENTITY RIGHTS.. by allowing 'uncontrolled' numbers of people from alien cultures here.. the (rightfully) existing culture and identity could be diluted to the point of violent reaction (Lambing Flats, Cronulla?)
Then there is the issue of the Sikh Kerpan.. covered in another thread on the madness of Multiculturalism.

-SECURITY RIGHTS.. it should go without saying that a soveriegn country MUST protect itself from any 5th column type infiltration.
I simply don't understand why the Communist party was not successfully banned when it came to Parliament in 1951 as a referendum.

Bottom line.. the USE and INTEPRETATION of "Human Rights" seems always to be at the expense of the prevailing existing culture.

WHY? which of course raises the question.. 'who' is pulling the strings about all this..and with what objective? and why are they being so successful at manipulating us?

Why do you do this BOZO?

Is your missionary zeal so strong that you are driven obsessively to keep the pot of intolerance bubbling away?

This thread is simply a rehash of what you've said time and time again; you simply re badge it by starting a new thread. You use that as a tactic to keep yourself and YOUR issues on the front burner.

How many times do you have to be told that you are as driven, as zealous; as the people that you hate! And you DO hate them BOZO.

You ARE the very people you want to see excluded. You are the same. Can't you see that?

You use your so-called Christianity as a branding iron to burn your message into those who are already convinced, so it is an unnecessary message;-OR those who are sick to death of your preaching, so they won't obediently take the iron.

You are not a Christian BOZO, you are a zealot; a fundamentalist.

Sound familiar?

"WHY? which of course raises the question.. 'who' is pulling the strings about all this..and with what objective? and why are they being so successful at manipulating us?"

Who are we? We are a motley crew - mozzies, atheists, a couple of Ba'hais, aliens, women, cocker spaniels. We live in igloos made of a special glass that render us invisible - which we need because we turn into vapour when we sleep and we don't want you to see. We live amongst you, but have secret ways of greeting and indentifying each other - letting our Burkhas drape in a certain way, talking about equality, sniffing each others bottoms.

What do we do? Well, Wednesdays PM we have a amateur theatrical society. We prefer the classics - Ibsen, Shakespeare - you should see the competition when it comes to casting Othello! (And Iago, for that matter - everyone wants to be a traitor.) We build mosques (really secret satellite dishes so the aliens among us can pick up cable TV from their home planets.)

Our objective? To irritate one Boaz, David. Oh, and world domination.

Why are we so good at it? Because some people love being the victim.

Quick everybody, grap your pitchforks and run up to the sheep pastures. Boazy says that wolf he keeps telling us about is back again. He reckons that if we all run a bit faster we might see it this time.

I wonder if the dingo Boazy calls "Make it up as you go morality" is up there as well? It's a cunning one that one.

Ring the bells, ring the bells, to arms, to arms. Wolf, wolf, wolf!

ps - Vanilla you might need to pin your burkha on better than last time, it's hard to panic effectively with it flapping in the breeze.

R0bert

Much of England and her beautiful gentle life has gone because of careless immigration yet its difficult to say no when there are so many in need.
I think safeguards in Australia might have been tighter and Islam watched more closely in earlier years; and I wish there had been occasional reports to the people about Islams encroachment... but ASIO was too tight, too off in their own world of secrets and forgot that we have a right to know, not for it to be put off until a civil war within the country begins to brew.
Australia is currently infested with spies. Chen Yonglin says 1,000 chinese governments spies. I dont want them here but we have too many weak people in charge to say "go away". We are already financial slaves to China. I dont want these spies here. I want them gone Mr. K.Rudd. Defence is also pathetic. I want that fixed. In the end the enemy will get here, around all of the big technology...what then in a nation with no back-ups apart from the pip squeek. No wonder folks in the north tremble.

Y'know, maybe you're right boaz. Human rights are pesky, evil things.

Maybe we should just give them all up and become part of the machine. Why, I believe the Chinese one party system is quite good at that. I mean, why bother with the right to vote? Damn human rights just get in the way of efficiency, and the importance of maintaining just the one culture.

Heck, they sure got the right idea about those Falun Gong freaks eh boaz? I mean, those godless heathens oughta be cracked down on, good and proper. Ship em to camps and go for the organs. They've no right to a different religion to the state, and heck, I'm sure other people with the right loyalties and cash can make better use of those organs.

And hell, during World War two, think of all the damn propaganda those pinkos were spreading about Vietnam. Why, nobody should have the right to even smell slightly communist in the US. Thank heaven for McCarthyism. It's high time we had another dose of that eh boaz? That'd whip em into shape.

And what's all this crap about the right to silence and a fair trial? Can you imagine how many more people we could imprison if we did away with those damned rights?
Maybe we should look to Saudi Arabia. Those guys have a kickass rate of imprisonment, and they're not at all fussed on all this 'human rights' crap.

Y'know, for efficiency's sake, you really can't go past folk like Pol Pot, or even Hitler. I mean, Germany took on most of Europe and the might of Russia, and if the Yanks hadn't intervened, well, he was in with a shot. Now that's efficiency.
And as for the different folk who weren't on board with the program, well, if they ain't on board with the program, heck, maybe they oughta just have the 'rights' to a gas chamber.

You're right boaz. Human rights get in the way of all these things. Perhaps they oughta be done away with huh?

Dear Boazy,

Can you remember when you were a kid and you'd lie in the grass on your back and watch the clouds scud above you and you'd dream of what you were going to be when you grew up?

Well, what happened?

BOAZ_David,

The Communist party was not successfully banned

Parliament passed a Bill to ban it.

Our High Court knocked the Legislation as unlawful.

The Referenda was so the law would be accepted by the High Court.

The People of Australia rejected the proposal.

The People were right, clearly one of our countries better moments ;-)


Do not support any totalitarians whatever their camoflage

With the exception of Gibo's nonsense, the above responses pretty well have Boazy's latest rant covered.

I always find it amusing when OLO's most prolific bigot starts raving on against human rights - you watch, he'll follow it up with some drivel about the need for universal Christian repentance within a day or two.

THE REAL TITLE...of this thread was...

THE ENEMY OF AUSTRALIA.. HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS.... :)

Words to that effect.

Did you notice the categories ? the Primary point I'm trying to make here.. is this..

'WHO'S RIGHTS RULE'?

Here is an interesting article which claims the same thing... from Londonistan.

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.auburn.nsw.gov.au/uploadedImages/AuburnWeb/Council/Tom-Ireika.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html&h=200&w=150&sz=7&hl=en&start=11&um=1&tbnid=Lg1IyZeQWqyq-M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsydney%2Blebanese%2Bmuslim%2Bthugs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

It seems to me...that the issue of 'rights' is one sided, and is nothing more than a ploy.. a tool of leftist political interests to achieve a breakdown of existing social structures for political gain.

Lets put another question..

WHEN 2 SETS OF RIGHTS CONFLICT.. WHO'S RIGHTS RULE ?

Now..lets say the 2 sets of 'rights' are the national culture and law of the land. verses 'rights to practice religion' in a way which is contrary to those laws.

Common sense says "The host countries laws and culture prevail"

and if that WAS the case..then this thread would never have been started by me....

But because it is NOT the case... hence this thread.

TRTL... you make the most sense among the 'anti' BD crowd :) so I'll respond to you.

Quite correct as far as it goes..when you speak of human rights and China etc.. the right to vote etc...

I don't have a quarrel with basic freedoms.

I DO have a quarrel with the USE of political constructs which are packaged as 'rights'... erode and destroy mine.

Any 'rights' which prevents me criticizing other belief systems, OR.. they criticizing mine.. is not 'rights' it is oppression.

If I want to say The Children of God cult permits sexual use of pre-pubescent children in 'marraiges' by old men'... and can argue this forcefully,

then..I want the right to SHOUT about these disgusting values which lay dormant in this religion awaiting the political opportunity to emerge like some slithering creature from the dark.

I do NOT want some freak lawyer, or leftist PCer to come along and say "Truth is not a defense.. you are vilifying a religion"

If it was a matter of the funny hats they wear.. ok.. no problem. shut me up for trivial idiocy, if it is about some dot on their forehead (Hindu's) then sure.. shove me off into the corner and put a dunces hat on me...
If I whine about their 'accent'.. then shove a brick sideways up my *beeep* and tell me I'm a racist moron....

BUT.. when it comes to institutionalized child abuse... I rather think I have the high moral ground.

So.. to all my critics there..
1/ DO YOU SUPPORT THEOLOGICALLY BASED CHILD ABUSE ?
2/ Are you comfortable for such values to grow unchallenged in the midst of our society?


Simple questions.. requiring YES....or NO answer..

I'll await the responses.

PS... INadmissable responses are..

a) "Oh but what about all those 'Christian'priests etc who abused little defenseless children"...

(It's inadmissable because such abuse is CONTRARY to the teaching of Christ.)

b) "You don't know what ur talking about" (sorry..I do)

c) "you are an idiot" :) err.. maybe in some things but not this.

Ahhh CK Morgan.
Whats wrong with BOAZ_David mentioning universal Christian repentence?
Its whats needed. Havent you noticed the world is morally falling to pieces.
We grab it soon... or God Will for us... the hard way. He says its going to be the hard way.
As for my nonsense about enemies and national defence, most of you guys really need to gear up in your minds and hearts for the invader I spoke so many times about. China dont build for nothing. And there probably will be no USA in those days, so you can forget that.
If youre not already 75-80 years old, everyone last one of you is going to stand in a front line foxhole somewhere on Australian soil before its all over. Those prophecies and visions arent false. Ive studied them sicne 1989 and am still looking for more.
Not one of you will escape national service when the enemy comes down over the horizon.
I just hope you petitioned before hand, the PM for more than broomhandles. Thats all he's got in 2008 to give to the common folks.

Eep. Notice I advertently mixed up the period od McCarthyism. Apologies.

Problem is, you speak of rights that go against the "law of the land" versus individual rights, as if the law of the land is solid and unyielding, whereas human rights laws aren't.

As it happens, many of these anti-discrimination laws also happen to BE the law of the land, but I'll let that slide for now.

The laws are to ensure everybody is treated pretty fairly in a manner that ensures society can continue to function.

Problem here, boaz, is that the minor incidents which you keep citing as evidence of some kind of subversive PC agenda, are an inevitable side effect of having laws that protect against discriminating against minorities.

I'm sure you're not so blinkered as to believe that minority groups in Australia will never be persecuted, if there's no legislation to tell people they shouldn't do that.

Tell me this, boaz - issues of the alleged onslaught of Islam aside, do you think it would be acceptable for an employer to say "nope, don't want to hire you. I hate black people."

There's the argument that employers should be able to hire whoever they want. I mean, they're creating the job, right?

What happens when the owner of a large company decides he dislikes a certain race, or belief?
What if we had a political party, that expressly decided it hated certain races or religions, and decided that it was going to run for government on the basis that we should round up all Jewish people?

You claim that these incidents are indicative of a submissive attitude that leaves us beholden to minorities.

Bulldust.
The things of which you speak are a minor side effect of a system that is doing very well at ensuring all of us get a fair crack without mistreating minorities.

It's a sliding scale that will inevitably be imperfect, but if the ideal point is at the middle of the ruler, then we're only a few millimetres to either side of that point.

Your dire warnings look more like scaremongering.

Dear Boazy,

Listen to what TRTL had to say. You are scaremongering.

I hate it when you go off on a tangent with all this negativity.
It doesn't make sense. Why do you do it?

If you keep feeding your mind with negative dialogue - what do you suppose is going to happen?

How long would you expect to keep a friend if you did the same thing?

Someone please give BD his medication, or check that its the right one

Gibo, "Havent you noticed the world is morally falling to pieces."

No I haven't and I'm trying to work out if you need to change suburbs, churches and/or what you fill your mind with.

My world is making progress with many of the old injustices being dismanteled. In my world we are working towards a time when each of us has the same freedoms to make the most of our abilities and drives regadless of race, gender etc. In my world people do not tolerate many of the abuses and injustices that marked times past. Some still exist and sometimes we are slow to move but mostly we are moving.

There are some things which are not working as well as I might like but from what I can tell those have been with us throughout time, it's just we can talk about them more honestly now and maybe have a chance at changing the harmful ones.

The parts of the world where I don't see moral progress are those parts which cling most fiercly to old thiestic dogma's and beliefs.

No Gibo, the world is not falling to pieces morally. We are caring more about a morality that is about how we treat others rather than a morality which is about who put what in which hole. Your penticostal pastors might want to tell you that the world is falling to pieces but that's marketting spin rather than truth.

R0bert

Gibo,TRTL...and FOXY....

All of you make good sense.. no problem with that.

But for CJ's sake.. no national repentance this time old son.

TRTL.. "does human rights legistlation go TOO FAR"? "Skin color"..tick. "creed"..aaaah...

<THE PHILOSPHICAL QUESTION>

THE PROBLEM comes.. in the area of 'creed', and 'culture'.

EXAMPLE.. 'differing cultures'.

You see.. 'tolerance' MUST.. repeat MUST.. have limits...and thats the core of this issue. It's what I'm digging for.

WHO...decides where those limits are? We aussies or.. some remote body like the UN. And..DOES that body have 'other' reasons for promoting the HR agenda?

If a 'creed' such as the 'Children of God' (David Moses Berg) of the 60s has adult child sexual interaction as part of its thing..... are we not being 'intolerant' by trying to clamp down on such things based on our culture and also our creed? You see..its only my CREED which tells me such things are "wrong". (Just as it is in the 'creed' of others saying it is 'right')

Now.. we could discuss the specifics till the cows come home, but it won't solve the primary core issue.. DO WE (as Australians) in PRINCIPLE have the 'human right' to preserve and protect our culture, based on our creed in some cases, and simple history in others.. from encroachment, attack, infringment and undermining?

So... 'do we...punks'? :) (ru feeling lucky)

Once we can agree on principle.. we can discuss specifics.

FOXY dear.. "I live for this stuff" :) Give me a choice of being 'rich' and changing the world.. and I think you know which I'll choose.. thats why when I worked out my OLO efforts have cost me around $28,000 in time.. it doesn't bother me.

Gah. Funny that my corrections seem to have the most typos. In the last post: 'Inadvertent' not 'advertent' and 'of' not 'od'.

Anyhow.

No, apparently we can't agree boaz, because as I pointed out in the last post, the things of which you speak are the minor side effects.

Riddle me this, boaz - in western societies throughout the world, do you think there has ever once, been a time, when there weren't a small proportion of groups acting in a manner that the rest of us might find abhorrent?

That's the price we pay for living in a reasonable society. There has to be some leeway for groups we find unpleasant, or we find ourselves cracking down at the slightest provocation.

Which appears to be precisely what you want. Well, to hell with that. If it's a choice between handing a massive amount of power to our government, or handing a very little bit to minorities in the form of these human rights, then I'll take the latter.

And for all your dire warning of an encroaching threat, to that I say, those same warnings have been yelled from soapboxes by the paranoid in every generation. All that changes is the label of the enemy.

Boaz, surely your Children of God example is solved by the fact that sex with underage people is illegal. Last time I checked, that overrode freedom of religion.

The recent bombings in the pet markets in Baghdad points up the problem.

That these people could send two handicapped people into the market
loaded up with bombs and then set them off by use of a mobile phone
is beyond the pale.

That their version of their religion allows them to do this shows that
they all should be banned and sent back.

I know, I know, they all will not do such things, but how do we tell
which is which ?
It is the basic premise of the belief that allows such atrocities.
There seems to be no way to sort out the bad from the good and the
good do not seem to rush around to denounce the bad.
Even if they do it secretly, that is no good either it has to be done
publically, otherwise it has no real value.

So why should we bother to try and sort them out, just export the lot
and be done with it ?

All that is not politically correct but really its just too bad.
Tell me, why should we bother ?

"DO WE (as Australians) in PRINCIPLE have the 'human right' to preserve and protect our culture, based on our creed in some cases, and simple history in others.. from encroachment, attack, infringment and undermining?"

Indeed we do, but the undermining force far from being the encroachment, attack, infringement or undermining from any monotheistic religious force is, in my opinion, based on the ruthless pursuit of profit by market capitalism which is the overruling dominant factor in the erosion of all traditional values be it religious or secular. Religion in all its forms is only a symptom of the decline of a healthy democracy with the orthodoxy of economic rationalism the basic problem impacting 'creed' & 'culture'.

Most of the social advances in modern times have occurred in spite of rather than because of religion, i.e. democracy, universal human rights, social equality, abolition of slavery, dismantling of the dynastic principle, emancipation of indigenous people, womens equality, civil rights, disability rights, gay liberation, the environmental movement etc none of which is based in grand narratives, thus in your conjecture Boaz any further social advances should remain free of religion, while the secular universal rights of culture and identity upheld.

Dear Boazy,

I think that you're worrying needlessly.

All applications for migration to Australia are assessed against requirements set out in the Migration Act and Regulations.

There are different criteria for different categories of visas and the criteria are established to meet Australia's national interests and needs.

The Government determines the criteria and sets the number of people who can enter under the programme on an annual basis. The policies
and legislation governing migrant selection are applied equally to all applicants.

The criteria for the Migration Programme is selective, choosing those applicants who meet Australia's requirements and have good prospects for successful settlement. Migrants can be selected on the basis of such factors as relationship to an Australian permanent resident or citizen, skills, age, qualifications, canpital and business acumen.

All applicants must also meet health and character requirements specified by migration legislation.

There are very detailed rules governing entry in each migration category and selection is bases on the case-by-case assessment of applications.

If a person satisfies Australia's selection criteria, he or she stands an equal chance of being selected, unless there is a cap imposed on the number of visas allocated to a particular category.

So you see Boazy - you're simply worrying needlessly.

Dear David Boaz
Misguided ill-informed persons such as yourself together with Extreme Conservatives, Nationalists, Racists, Religous Fundamentalists, Working Class Conservative Voters have always been their own worst enemy. David Boaz your thinking is extremely dangerous not unlike the Enoch Powell's, Pauline Hanson's and Oswald Mosely thinking that incites this behaviour that you speak about. ther is nothing most wonderful that to have a multi cultural family as we are all part of one race the human race.

NOW THAT....is what I call progress :) the diversity of comment is most appreciated.. quite a few good thoughts there.

1/ TRTL.. now.. I disagree with you only on the issue of 'degree'.
YES.. of course we must make allowances for whackos etc.. no problem there; BUT.. it is definitely in issue of 'degree' and also.. it depends on the nature of the 'whacko'ness... I think you and I would be on the same page re the Ananda Marga would we not? please clarify that. At least its a starting point.

2/ PEACHY.. I think the threat is EXACTLY as you described it *tick* but that (unrestrained capitialism) is just one dimension of the problem.
Alongside Capitalism which seeks to erode our freedoms by nefarious means, there is ALSO the pressure from these people (please view the video and listen 'carefully' to the exact words of the moron degenerate in the white cap. These rabid low lifes held a rally also at Westminster Cathedral!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEs-T-2Zi_s

3/ Foxy.. please view the same vid mate..

QUESTION. IF.... such a thing were to happen in Melbourne or Sydney, would you not have a slightly higher level of concern than you do now ?

When it gets to the point where people can carry signs calling for the EXTERMINATION of others just because they are offended..and signs saying 'British Police goto HELL' (right behind a Policewoman) I have a mild feeling of 'Maybe its almost too late'....

From what I'm seeing, the 'reaction' is building, and unless POLICY is changed now... and changed RADICALLY ...the 'reaction' will be very ugly.
Support for BNP policies is around 55%, (when the name BNP is not mentioned) it drops to 49% when people are told "These are BNP policies"

You might find this banned speech interesting also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDOJaOAmJFQ

BRONCO....Enoch Powell -proven to be a prophet..not a crank :)

Note Griffins mention of the utterly evil law 'Truth is no defense'
Well.. to put in the milllldest possible way "I disagree" -watch..and learn.
Nick has yet to learn :) "Works of art are not subject to that law"

Boazy: "YES.. of course we must make allowances for whackos etc.. "

Indeed - but of course Boazy would have to say that, wouldn't he? Otherwise he'd be hoisting himself on his own whacko petard.

CJ.. thanx for allowing my 'whacko'ness a bit of a go :)

This makes interesting reading:

WREXHAM RIOTS. WALES

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/3016678.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/3014210.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/3028490.stm

Here is the BNP take on the same events. Note what the Kurd 'refugees' did.. attacking a pub with knives and iron bars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDOJaOAmJFQ

You can post all you like Boazy, but I just don't see anything of interest here beyond, as others have pointed out, scaremongering and bulldust.

I don't know why you put refugees in quote marks. Do you think refugees from Iraq aren't real refugees? No one is suggesting that all refos are innocents abroad, peaceful people in search of a safe haven where they will immediately learn perfect English and start watching Dancing with the Stars and understand the Hare-Clark voting system. Refugees emerge from war zones with scars intact. When they get here, they stick fast to their old traditions - the things that kept them sane through their years of hell. They watch insurgencies in their countries of origin, and think about the relatives they left behind. And they can create conflict and sometimes violence in Australia. That's how it works.

How do we improve it? Not your way. Fear and loathing do nothing. They do nothing to help the enormous worldwide refugee crisis. Australia takes few refugess - even per capita - while Iran and Pakistan and Chad take millions each year. They live in desperate, squalid conditions and hope to lose a few less of their children than they would otherwise have done in Afghanistan or Iraq. Then, for the teensy proportion who are lucky enough to make it to Australia, people like Boazy freak out that it takes them a *whole generation* to fit into a western country, and how his cultural rights are being trampled on because he has to see women in Burkhas at the beach. For shame!

I don't believe in religious vilification laws and want them removed. But I could not campaign alongside you Boaz, because your values are petty and paranoid and mean-spirited. Your patronising, Jesus-was-a-bigot-too attitude, in which you *understand* the machinations of society and can prove this through the liberal application of capital letters and ellipses, convinces no one.

Keep blahing on, by all means, but don't imagine that anyone here with a brain in their head is taking your seriously.

Vanilla, your my hero. That was very well put.

R0bert

Aw shucks R0bert. You're only saying that because we're secretly the same person.

Boaz

Crude attempts to manufacture fear by manipulative disinformation and specious argument won't do.

Consider e.g. your statement that you "simply don't understand why the Communist party was not successfully banned when it came to Parliament in 1951 as a referendum".

(a) The Australian people disagreed with Menzies that the Communist Party of Australia was a threat to our way of life. Democracy - freedom of political belief - won out. It's possible that banning the Communist Party would have strengthened its subversive activity.

(b) The Communist Party operated freely in Australia - for the next half century. The outcome? Some lively public meetings. A handful of excellent articles (and a great many more boring ones) in a few low-budget journals which have since gone broke. A plethora of ASIO files now proved to be risible. Some sporadic distraction from mainstream politics. No inroads into mainstream politics. In time the Communist Party faded into relative obscurity.

BOAZ, you certainly don't let the facts get in the way of your confected doomsday scenarios, do you?

Australia has had Islamic schools for many years without civil disturbance. Many more new Christian schools have come into existence in Australia in the past twenty years and show no signs of causing trouble except to their students' welfare.

Australia's immigration program does not allow 'uncontrolled' numbers of people from alien [sic] cultures or uncontrolled numbers from whatever is the opposite of alien cultures. (By definition, immigrants are all 'alien' at at the point-of-entry.) Our immigration program is tightly controlled and subject to ongoing review, as Minister Andrews demonstrated last year.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of fear when you claim that Lambing Flat and Cronulla are evidence that "existing culture and identity could be diluted to the point of violent reaction". Your argument might have been better had you cited evidence from e.g. the Eumerella War or the massacres at Murdering Gully, Myall Creek or the Convincing Ground.

Last month Australia was about to be ruined by Sikh Kerpans, but the Test cricket fiasco was far more damaging.

Dear Vanilla,

Superbly argued. I agree with Robert. You're a gem!

However, I don't think anything is going to get through to Boazy.
He is convinced he's on a 'divine mission.'
He's trying to find the answers for all of us. It's sad really ...

I don't think he could find a grand piano in a one room house.

TEAM..... believe it or not.. I do see ur points.

But what I also see is..... 'incremental change over time'= BIG change.

Now.. Frank.. quite eloquently argued that we have schools blah blah and the world has not split asunder. Well put.

But are any of you folks able to extrapolate based on the experience of other countries? hmmmm?

If I said "a broadening of Islamic infrstructure and political influence will mean some of us have to suffer under their call to prayer 5 times a day" aah. "Fearmongering" you say ? really ?

err..no. REALITY (oops..there I go Vanila..those caps again :)

Here is the 'down the track' scenario:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504373&in_page_id=1770
"Muslim elders at an Oxford mosque have said they intend to push ahead with plans to broadcast a call to prayer from a loudspeaker despite fierce opposition."

Notice the order of events.
1/ Proposal to broadcast
2/ Community outrage
3/ Stubborn JACKboot of "we will go ahead anyway"

Here is a link where some posters here might find a bedfellow in the Bishop of Oxford :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/12/nislam112.xml

Sorrrry folks.... the call to prayer is ALSO an insult to every non Muslim..and esPECially to Christians who, as I've pointed out elsewhere are CURSED by the Quran and thus by every Muslim symbol, including the call to prayer.

WHICH "right" prevails.

Mine/ours, to a peaceful non threatening soundscape.
or
Theirs to loudly proclaim 'their' faith against the wishes of the community? (is this a 'right' ?)

Once you define a human right of a person you may also be removing a definition of what another might believe is their right. This then leaves it up to the court to determine if a right has been violated. This is especially sensitive in the case of children and parents and teachers etc.

Australia has existed for over 200 years without a Bill of Rights and you will find most Australians a very egalitarian society. Of course as we move away from the core human values that have fashioned Australia's selfless nature into a more selfish society then courts will reap the benifits of Human Rights definitions. Currently we operate on conscience and a fair go for everyone; without resorting to litigation.

BOAZ

After all your claptrap, what you mean is that you have no argument or evidence but you'll continue to reject anyone else's argument or evidence.

Did some big alien man lock you in a dark cupboard when you were a small child?

But Frank, IT MIGHT HAPPEN HERE!

Because IT MIGHT HAPPEN SOMEWHERE ELSE it is only rational to suggest that

IT WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN HERE TOO !!

Philo - all accepted notions of human rights of which I'm aware take into account the rights of other people.

You're blowing out of your arse again, old son.

Isn't it interesting that those OLO citizens who are most vehemently opposed to human rights tend also to be our most fundamentalist Christians?

P.S. Vanilla - ditto with R0bert and Foxy. I couldn't have put it better myself :)

FASCINATING....

Frank, in spite of clear evidence says "You have no evidence"

CJ.. in spite of the clear mention that by asserting one persons 'rights' we are in fact often trampling on anothers says "you who oppose human rights"

Then..to cap it all...they couch there posts (like Vanilla did) in a 'we are smarter than you" tone :)

There is only one problem... the readers of these posts can actually 'think'.......

You see.. when I say

"by what criteria do we resolve conflicting supposed rights" (words to that effect)

I get:

-We are smarter than you.
-You have no evidence.
-Your speaking out ur rear (to Philo)

NOT A SHREAD of actual engagement with the issue.. so I'll re-state it.

BY WHAT.. criteria.. do we resolve conflicting supposed rights?

I suggest...that when it comes to 'rights' that those of a host culture must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer.

Its called 'queing'...'peck order'...'respect'.....

So to all you critics out there.. do you actually know anything about those words ? :)

In the face of such basic playschool logic, to find alledgedly (by their own estimation) intelligent people who actually deny this.. rather demonstrates their deluded condition.. sadly, Morgan uses his real name here..and his peers and family will look at what he writes and soon be recommending serious therapy :) (unless they also share his delusions)

AGAIN.. (just in case you 4got) should we make a determination of who's rights prevail based on the existing culture or a country?

IF... the'rights to practice my religion' are in conflict with either the established culture of a place and/or its laws.. surely you don't need anything more than primary 6 education (or less) to appreciate the obvious answer to this serious question?

OK BOAZ

Let's apply YOUR rules of engagement: "I suggest...that when it comes to 'rights' that those of a host culture must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer. Its called 'queing'...'peck order'...'respect'....."

That's what you said.

So let's hear what you have to say about the rights of Indigenous Australians relative to the rights of the British and subsequent 'alien' cultures. As you said: the first people's rights "must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer".

Let's have your comments on such episodes of Australian history as the Eumerella War or the massacres at Murdering Gully, Myall Creek or the Convincing Ground.

Please apply some of your "basic playschool logic". As you so frankly say, "surely you don't need anything more than primary 6 education (or less) to appreciate the obvious answer" to this serious question about the queue of rights.

BOAZ. The only reason you can comment on this thread is that you have human rights. Otherwise I would have chopped off your head years ago.

Boazy,

I apologise if I sounded like I was making this into a cleverclogs competition. I'm *not* suggesting you're not smart. I do, however, dislike your tone, which appears to suggest that these matters are not ones of disagreement but of the other posters simply not *getting it*. We get your points. We just disagree. I'm not suggesting I or anyone else here is cleverer than you (they may be, but that's irrelevant), I'm suggesting you're wrong, and that you're motivated by Christian jihad.

As to the evidence, where is it? I had a look at the Muslim call to prayer stuff. Obviously a hotly contended local issue. I note, however, a Mosque representative says: "Building work will take another nine months to a year, it is then that we plan to make an application to the council.. if [three times a day] is not accepted, then we would like to have it at least on Fridays. We do not need the volume to be loud but we want to have the call in some form because it's our tradition."

So, the answer to your question about rights seems to be that the Council - and therefore the rights of the community - will prevail. The Muslim community clearly accepts this.

In the case of the COG, as I said earlier, Australia's laws on the age of consent trump COG tradition.

The riots in Wales were terrible. But I don't think the Kurds ever felt it was their "right" to create a violent incident. They were fed up, they were a community in crisis, they lashed out unfairly and unlawfully.

I don't see that you've provided any evidence to back up your original premise. Your only point seems to be that there is religious and cultural conflict in Western countries. No shi!t, Sherlock.

How we deal with that is a fascinating, ongoing discussion that IMHO needs to be tackled from both a global and national perspective, and with compassion, creativity, intelligence, empathy and courage.

I cannot believe that so many people subscribe to a new religion whatever we call it UN or human rights. This does not have sense.
Perhaps I do not know what you mean, but the nonsense in my logic is that you putting a cart before the horse.

I've seen all of you loughing of boaz, but have not seen any sensible explanation. You have not explained him, you used some examples which I cannot see that have any logical connection with the subject.

Are you trying to say that Hitler did what he did just because human rights were not invented, or that he disobeyed them?

Are you trying to say that if something is labelled human rights it does mean that it is right and good?

Than I will tell you that I can and will give you examples that you are very wrong.

I will simply my example/argument and see what you have to say. Hypothetical example. A child is neglected but everything happen according to human rights. The child commits suicide or dies from negligence. Where is sense of human rights here?
Now same child and according to "nonsense" christianity, there is sensible (to me guys) rule of duty, care and love. Love is a big bag containing other good things. Let me consolidate the two philosophies (sounds more balanced than fanatical religion of UN or fanatical Christianity). You have a child who has "the rights" and no one to love and care.
Now you have same child but the parents have duty and privilege to care and love one.
You tell me in which family/situation you want to be raised if you were this child?
Don't be shy, you can change your mind. I have changed mine many times and continue to do so.

Please do not ask me to give you examples of human rights in practice, because it may dwarf your Hitler.

Let me ask you, what in your opinion is highest human achievement? What is most important ingredient of human life deciding about our health, and well being?

Yipeeee some support :) Thanx Mzz..

Vanilla.. at least now I can see you looking at discussing the issues.

Yes.. we 'disagree' and thats the point where we need to start grappling with the evidence..and see where it takes us.. much like a jury must do.

May I suggest that you view this video..and give your opinion on it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn-9_FUBUc

1/ Fox news beat up..as usual.
2/ Symptomatic of much bigger problems to come.
3/ Outrageous that blind and alchohol carrying Americans are refused public transport (Taxi) because of Islamic law.

I'm very much on the last one.

The cycle is like this.

-Migrants gather with their ethnic/religious kin.
-As numbers increase they seek to CHANGE the laws to suit them.

Do you at least see that much ? if you do, then don't you see a trend there ? can you not predict the future based on this very noticable trend?
Do you feel comfortable having your culture undermined by outsiders?

Don't you see that if this 'trend' is repeated in a number of places, it adds up to a MOVEMENT...and so on.

I'll await your feedback.

FRANK.. Good point(White Australians/Indigenous) and if you don't learn a very valuable LESSON from that..... we are in big trouble.
Are you not able to look at the impact of what WE (via our ancestors) did to Indigenous Australia and from that.. extrapolate to what others may do to us?

Dear mmistrz,

Human rights are an inextricable part of our lives. In fact, they are so much a part of every day living that we often take for granted the protection they offer us. Consider, for example, how often you drink clean water; eat food; go to school or university; say or write what you think; practice a religion (or not); vote for a political party; demand privacy, and expect to be treated fairly by others. All of these everyday activities depend on the adequate protection of your human rights as well as those of your neighbour.

Where the protection is inadequate or missing altogether your human rights suffer.

Without the recognition of these rights and their adequate protection human society would simply not exist. The 'use' of human rights is that through them we become more truly human and our societies worth living in. That, in short, is their importance.

A respect for the basic human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequent covenants is to be found at the heart of Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism,
Hinduism and Islam.

"In the Bible its expression is 'Love thy neighbour as yourself'; in the Koran it is'no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself; in the Talmud 'regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbour's loss as your own loss', and in Buddhism it finds expression in terms such as 'hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.'
Kate Gilmore, National Director, Amnesty International,
on our common humanity.

Our greatest human achievement would be if we could educate people in
developing an understanding of what it means to treat other people with dignity and respect for their rights. It's about using this understanding to guide the way we see and act in society.

With understanding, comes respect. And this respect helps build strong communities, bsed on equality and tolerance in which everyone has an opportunity to contribute.

I hope that answers your question.

Cheers.

Boazy,

"Yes.. we 'disagree' and thats the point where we need to start grappling with the evidence..and see where it takes us.. much like a jury must do."

And yet your every piece of "evidence" has been a misinterpretation, and when this is pointed out, and you simply never refer to that example again. Sorry, but there is no debate. Just someone desperately trying to justify his prejudices by finding YouTube footage of religious nutters. Well, you certainly wouldn't be the first fan of Fox News to so do.

I think you should forget about politics for a while and start delving within yourself. What are the psychological explanations for your paranoia about Islam? Forget about them, where does it come from, within you?

mmistiz,

What Foxy said.

Human rights are not a religion. They do not seek to compete with religions.

The abuse or neglect of children is absolutely unacceptable. As a community, as a country, we should do all we can to prevent it. Human rights help set standards, and can serve as markers to help us measure how well we have done in nuturing children.

However, abuse exists. Many different churches, Christian and otherwise, have been responsible for abusing and neglecting children. (Please see the other thread about the "Forgotten Australians".) So have many adults, some of whom I'm sure paid lip service to a belief in human rights. The list is not perfect, and we should never give up on trying to improve it. A list of corresponding responsibilities might be a good idea, for example. But it is a starting point for improving all those individual candle flames that together make up humanity.

Have you read the Declaration on the Rights of Children? It's here, if you'd like to: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm

Vanilla....

you really need a good shake..

You say my 'evidence' is a misinterpretation? and that this is often pointed out ? good GRIEF! I must object to that...

I honestly fail to see how me pointing out the ABUSE of human rights of blind people, and underlining that this abuse comes from Muslims claiming the same human rights as Foxy is waxing eloquent about....
is 'bias'?

This is not a little backwoods problem it is world wide.. UK, America, Australia.. everywhere.. Yet..I presume you would not see an attempt to 'Islamize' the places concerned by imposing Sharia law which is against the law of the land ? Please don't insult me by saying I'm biased just because I stick up for the blind and the boozers with the law of the land on my side.

Drivers would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked for two years after the second offense. The cabbies would be subject to the new penalties by May 11, when airport taxi licenses are scheduled for annual renewal.

<<Last year, the Metropolitan Airport Commission received a fatwa from the Muslim American Society of Minnesota that forbade taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol so as to avoid “cooperating in sin according to Islam.”

“Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean,” Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul, tells The Associated Press. Mohamud, who is also director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, plans to petition airport officials to reconsider their proposal.>>

A FATWA ?.. ERR.. MUSLIM RELIGIOUS RULING trying to overturn the law of the land on discrimination? I'm just taking a wild guess here..but I'd say you don't see 'Incremental Islamization' by stealth here do you ? well.. afterall..we are discussing 'blind'people arn't we :)

Boazy: "we are discussing 'blind'people arn't we"

Yup. Some people are just so blinded by their bigotry that they simply don't get it when it's pointed out to them.

Dear Vanilla, CJ and others,

It has just occurred to me - why do we react to anything this man has to say?

He reminds me of a barking dog - let him bark - and when he's tired
he'll stop.

We can't take him seriously. He's either a hack or as CJ would put it - a troll (don't feed him) or he gets his jollies by being deliberately provocative - and then sitting back and laughing at all of our reactions.

Let him stew in his own bigotry and bias - you can't reason with him.
It's an exercise in futility ... and by reacting we stoop down to his level.

EXACTLY!!

When a society has to put into law what is "a right" we have failed as humanity to understand our responsibilities toward each other. It is then a sad commentary on the society that they have failed to educate and demonstrate to the young their human responsibilities.

As Foxy has quoted from Kate Gilmore, National Director, Amnesty International, on our common humanity.
"In the Bible its expression is 'Love thy neighbour as yourself'; in the Koran it is'no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself; in the Talmud 'regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbour's loss as your own loss', and in Buddhism it finds expression in terms such as 'hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

If all were educated in this divine responsible attitude toward others, others rights would be met without enforcement by laws. Love is not defined by law, and to enforce such is not love but enforced tolerance. Such a law defines a disobedient attitude toward God and a frustrated society. Litigious action becomes the nature of such a society - I want to be loved and accepted. Instead I'll get a pound of your flesh as a form of justice

Foxy, "It has just occurred to me - why do we react to anything this man has to say"

Boazy and others of his ilk will never be swayed by reason or truth but hopefully others who may be taken in by his tactics might be less inclined to be swayed if rebuttals are available.

There were some survey results published a while ago that suggested that posters on this site are massively outnumbered by those who read but don't post. Some of those may not be familiar with Boazy's tactics. Boazy weaves just enough truth into his campaigns to make them appear plausable. He plays to fears that are already out there.

CJ Morgan, TurnLeftThenRight, Vanilla, yourself and others who take the effort to show Boazy's claims for what they are will never shift Boazy's views but they may save others from stumbling down that path.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

Thanks for your insight.

You're right of-course.

What I find so abhorrent is his constant
selective quotes from the Bible, to back the venom that's
coming out of his mouth

FOXY and gang.... :)

seriously... there is a big problem here.

THE ISSUE. (which I truuuuuly would love an answer to)

"Who's 'rights' prevail" ?

Let's use the Muslim taxi drivers as the prime example because this is not an isolated, remote issue, it is world wide. (google it)

Stop attacking ME...and start with the ISSUE.. how many times do I have to say this b4 it sinks in...?

1/ A Muslim Taxi religious sensibilities? (which are lawfully abrogated when he signs a driver contract OR is issued a licence)

2/ A blind citizen with a guide dog, who seeks the service of a taxi under the laws of the land, and in compliance with the conditions of any taxi licence issued BY that land who's laws they all live under?

I've yet to see any of you 'bigots' answer this. I use the word 'bigot' because you clearly don't see or are deliberately ignoring the issue... using words like 'troll-don't feed him' are useless... because there is an important issue of social justice at stake.

SOCIAL JUSTICE...! yes..that's what it's about. How DARE some whacko religious group make a 'fatwa' which seeks to overide the laws of the land which rather than hurling them into some dissenters dungeon actually allows them to rave on..... The most any of them can do, is work withIN the democratic frame work to change the law.. lawfully.
(Which of course lead me to a whole other area of interest but I'll resist the temptation to woffle about that now)

BOAZ

You are living proof that the people with the least to say, say it most often

boaz: "and start with the ISSUE.. how many times do I have to say this b4 it sinks in...?"

I'm asking myself the same question. I've pointed it out before boaz - the things of which you speak are minor disagreements in culture.

These disagreements have been happening throughout history, and are an inevitable part of human life where multiple cultures exist.

We get it boaz. I see your constant capitals, saying things like: CULTURAL CLASHES! EROSION OF OUR WAY OF LIFE! THE ISSUE! How many times must I say it, we are at THREAT! The Qu'ran promotes VIOLENCE! PEDOPHILES! TERRORISM! BOMBERS! ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Ad nauseum. I'm hearing it. I just think it's bulldust, and it's not because I'm ignoring the conspiracy of which you speak, and it's not because you're some lone voice of reason, standing against the impending onslaught of another culture (which is how I suspect you see it).

I know you can promote bits of the Qu'ran or the bible to back your case, but when you start on that, I really do start ignoring your points. There's ugliness in both texts, but you only accept the contortionism you do on behalf of the ugly bits of your book, but insist the Qu'ran must be immutable, even though there's a billion odd muslims who aren't pedophile warlords.
I.e. Your refusal to judge god for his torture of Job were among the least convincing posts I've seen from you.

When this is pointed out, you inevitably launch into a spray on how when pressed, muslims will choose their religion over western society, without mention of the priority you place on your zealotry. Frankly, the only people pressing muslims into that situation are people like you.

You're not some lone voice of reason, you're the one stirring the pot. If this scenario you present does occur, it'll because people like yourself, who can only envisage the world through a simple set of loyalties, have forced people so far into a corner, they've been made to lash out.

Just a brief google establishes that the "issue" is confined to a handful of incidents in North America scattered over the past decade. Articles I read also mentioned other instances of blind people (and in one case a deaf person with a "hearing-ear" dog) being refused services because of their dog by non-Muslims. In Canada, Muslim spokesman Sameer Zuberi said, "Given that our faith is a charitable one, where we are looking to help people, it's the right thing to do to allow a seeing eye dog into your car."

All the taxi drivers in question were charged, although not all were fined.

In other words, as TRTL says, this has been a minor issue. Awful for those involved, I'm sure, but multiculturalism is not easy, and inevitably there will be difficulties. We need to match those difficulties with solutions. Creative, intelligent, understanding solutions. In Canada at least, these solutions were driven by the Muslim community.

The reason everyone on this thread is being hostile to you is because your response to these incidents is completely without charity, without wisdom, without empathy, without solutions. Instead, it is hateful, and deals in untruths and exaggeration. You do not stick up for the blind. You use them, to scaremonger.

The other reason you've aroused hostility is because of your tone. The whole "FINALLY *tick* Now we're getting somewhere!!" is *really* irritating. Again as TRTL points out, you seem to think you talk sense while the rest of us fail to get it. If you really believe this, I do feel truly sorry for you. It guarantees you will never learn, and never grow. But if you're just being pompous, then can you stop?

Boaz,
I would say most of your opposition is coming from people who imagine the whole of the World is like the freedoms equality and justice we have in Australia. They have never lived in another culture.

Philo

Heaven forbid, another BOAZ think-alike. When you haven't got an argument - or any evidence to support your case - attack the people who disagree with you.

It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.

"They have never lived in another culture." (Quote: Philo)

Really? You know that do you?

Philo: "I would say most of your opposition is coming from people who imagine the whole of the World is like the freedoms equality and justice we have in Australia. They have never lived in another culture."

I have, and it's that that inspires me defend tolerance and mulitculturalism. Try living without it.

Mulitculturalism is more challenging, more intellectually and practically difficult than living a life where what you wear, what you believe and who your enemies are prescribed by the church and/or state. It is also infinitely stronger, braver, freer and truer. I dislike intolerance whether it comes from a Muslim taxi driver or from Boaz, and in both cases I revel in my freedom to say so. However, I have faith in the citizenry of multicultural nations - us, the US, Canada, Britian - and in the tenants of mulitculturalism to to continually invent ways for us all to live together, to solve these problems.

It's not neat and tidy, it's messy and difficult. But it's worth it.

It might pay to have a peek at the second half of this video : http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=7098173340855990189&q=globalism+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=45&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
where this General talks about "the world is dividing into three groups with different stages to be implemented". Australia is in one of the stages where they bring in all different cultures to create an up rising via "human rights issues" the next stage will be violence and then....

For the record philo, if I was in the business of levelling assumptions at others, I'd say it was more likely the vocal anti-multiculturalist squad are the ones who haven't lived outside westen culture.

Also for the record, I have lived in and amongst a number of other cultures. That's why I'm aware that most of this anti-multiculture vitriol is unsubstantiated.

And yes, I'm aware that there are horrendous muslim regimes out there. But it's just that - a dictator holding onto their power, often using religion to manipulate the masses.

Translating that into a frontal assault on the western world is much more difficult, and actually it tends to be the enemies of these dictators who stir up terrorist acts.

The united islamic enemy is a myth.

Most of those who wish violence upon the western world also bear grudges against local dictators, who are much more likely to feel their wrath.

I would put it to you that it's the people who envisage a monolithic enemy are the ones who have little experience of the real world of other cultures, because the ones who travel realise that squabbles between cultures are inevitable, but aren't the sign of some kind of encompassing conflict.

A vacuous Philo-ism to support Boazy's endless hateful drivel. The Christian Taliban shows itself to be every bit as abhorrent as the Muslim fundies.

FYI Philo, I've lived and worked in several different cultures and countries - one of which was Muslim. When I was there I was working with a Malay NGO that provides services for people with disabilities.

Give me those Muslims over your kind of Christians anyday.

Dear Philo,

I suppose I may as well jump in - I too have lived in other countries.
Europe, the U.S. Canada, Mexico, parts of Asia, and Russia.

My view of other cultures - is not a blinkered one.
It's based on experience.

TurnRightThenLeft, the grand master of the OLO anti-multiculturalist squad has according to past posts lived outside Australia but I suspect that there as here he saw what he wanted to see and ignored that which he did not want to see.

His experience may also have been coloured by the fact that he was in other countries trying to convert people to his own religion. I expect that foreign missionaries in Australia pushing religions other than christianity might have a different experience of Australia than someone who was in the country with a willingness to learn from the locals.

It's not necessarily about where you have lived but rather how much you are willing to see and learn.

R0bert

Hmm. Good point R0bert. Maybe this whole debate just stems from a perception that missionaries are only supposed to flow one way...

Indeed, R0bert and TRTL.

Damn good point. I'll have to think about that for a bit, but it does seem particularly hypocritical, doesn't it?

Sorry, just wanted to bob my head in for a moment because R0bert said something that really caught my eye…

<<… the grand master of the OLO anti-multiculturalist squad has according to past posts lived outside Australia but I suspect that there as here he saw what he wanted to see and ignored that which he did not want to see>>

I think R0bert has hit the nail squarely on the head here, because this is typical of not just the religious mindset, but even more so of those who frequently experience what’s known as ‘Religious Ecstasy’.

From Wikipedia:

”Religious ecstasy is an altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness which is frequently accompanied by visions and emotional/intuitive (and sometimes physical) euphoria. Although the experience is usually brief in physical time, there are records of such experiences lasting several days or even more, and of recurring experiences of ecstasy during one's lifetime. Subjective perception of time, space and/or self may strongly change or disappear during ecstasy.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ecstasy

I think this explains just every about every one of Boaz’s posts to the point where it’s almost spooky.

My goodness..there is so much to go on here....

Great to see some juices flowing... but there are some curious bits.

Frank:) ur a treasure really...

<<BOAZ
You are living proof that the people with the least to say, say it most often
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 11 February 2008 9:29:20 AM>>

then this:

<<Heaven forbid, another BOAZ think-alike. When you haven't got an argument - or any evidence to support your case - attack the people who disagree with you.
It's intellectually dishonest and lazy.>>

The word 'irony' comes2mind.

TRTL.. again some reasonably close to sensible discussion:

"but when you start on that, I really do start ignoring your points".

Now..'that' is where you become unhinged mate. Honestly.. you should have gone 'right' but you went 'left'.... You are disconnecting the behavior of the taxi drivers from the 'reason' they behave that way.

Now.. one poster said "They were all charged, its minor.. isolated" etc.. But what you seem to be ignoring.. (all the anti BD gang)
is the 'thin edge of the wedge' stuff.

It might not concern you mob that the Archbishop of Canterbury is so out of it that he..as the head of one of the largest Christian traditions in the world, can suggest 'Lets allow Sharia law into our legal system' but boy oh boy..it sure concerns me. That kind of thing is not 'isolated and minor'....
The other things.. taxi drivers.. it's also not isolated.. Melbourne..Sydney... America...Canada..UK... is not 'isolated'.

But a FATWA ? seeking to overule our law on the basis of Sharia?
Again.. its not minor.

FINALLY. I still haven't seen an answer to the question: "Who's 'rights' should prevail? The Taxi drivers 'freedom of religion' or the Law of the land?

If we can all agree "Law of the land" I'd consider that real progress!

TRTL...one more important thing you said deserves further discussion.

<<Translating that (Muslim Dictatorships)into a frontal assault on the western world is much more difficult, and actually it tends to be the enemies of these dictators who stir up terrorist acts.>>

Rarely in the annals of human discussion, have truer words ever been spoken!

That is exxxxactly what I'm on about. The 'enemy' is not the Hosni Mubarraks, the House of Saud, Sadaam Hussein... etc... it is the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir.. I truly believe you blokes and girls.. know so little about this group.. their widespread activities and their actual goals of a world Kalifah that it almost inspires me to offer a public seminar on that very issue.

Here is how it works...

1/ Radical groups (whether they be Aryan Brothers or Muslim fundanmentalists) become more active.
2/ They then threaten "If you are not with us.. we will kill you"

Union groups even use this method.. sometimes to the point of at least threatening to kill.. though with the Painters and Dockers they did just that.

So..the 'enemy' TRTL is this mob. My objective is to raise awareness of such groups, and such processes, and to combat them at the ideological level.

"Know your enemy" is also one of those chunks of wisdom we could all benefit from.

I wonder how many of you who claim to have 'lived in other cultures' ever saw things from the point of view of those on the rough end of the stick as opposed to being cocooned in very 'managed' situations.

The prize for the most 'vacuous' statement goes this time to CJ..

"I worked with a Malay NGO"

*pat pat* CJ... did you get out among the indigenous people who's land is being stolen for either timber concessions or Oil palm estates? Did you ask him why Malay members of Parliament regularly RANT (yes, caps needed) about "If anyone ever DARE threaten Malay position and privilege, they should be incarcerated under the internal security act" etc etc...

Did you ever unpack the real situation ? I doubt it.

Dear Philo
You are wrong if you think that we << have never lived in another culture>>. In really, we lived in many countries, I visited more than fifty countries and I stayed for more than three years in four countries. Because we lived in different countries we learned to respect other civilizations and promote the understanding and cooperation between people of different civilizations. Only persons who underestimate their civilization, only extreme nationalists afraid and worry for their civilization and fight against any other civilization. I am very happy when I live in a country with people from different civilizations because I have the chance to take any good elements from their civilizations and improve our civilizations. It is shameful, when the new technology transformed our planet in a small village, some people to try to divide our world and move backward our civilization.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The Archbishop's comments have been presented to you on this Forum -
totally out of context...

Dr Rowan Williams argued that adopting SOME aspects of sharia seemed
"unavoidable." Giving certain aspects of Islamic law some official status in Britain would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslim's did not relate to the British legal system, he explained.

His comments were delivered in a lecture on civil and religious law given at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London.

However, they were swiftly rebutted by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, who insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, not should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," he said.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at."

It should be explained that the Archbishop of Canterbury was attempting to promote tolerance and respect between two great faiths.
As he succinctly stated," There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with SOME aspects of Mulsim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law."

But he did not endorse the 'kind of inhumanity' that was associated with sharia in some Islamic states.

Boazy: "The prize for the most 'vacuous' statement goes this time to CJ.. "

You are such a patronising prat, Bozo. I was responding to a clearly false claim from your fellow Christian Taliban that those of us who object to your continual bigotry "have never lived in another culture".

Do you know what "vacuous" means? Look it up, and you'll find that the word is far more applicable to your latest drivel than my response to Philo.

It's important to smash stereotypes.

Australia is so far from the Middle East - people can be given the wrong perception of that part of the world - by certain posters on this Forum.

Ever since the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 - the Middle East has been deprived of their humanity. They're looked upon by certain people as different creatures. Islam is now perceived by them as the religion of terrorists and suicide bombers. They think that every Arab has become a terrorist, every Muslim a fundamentalist.

There is fundamentalism alll over the world, not only in the Middle East. There was terrorism in Ireland, they lived with it for generations. The same in South America - it was never labelled Catholic terrorism or South American terrorism.

It's sad also that certain media lumps together all Islamic countries - sad because they are so diverse. They cover in area from China and Indonesia to North Africa.

The veils that we have to fear are not the veils that cover their faces. They're the veils that cover certain people's minds; veils of ignorance, bigotry and xenophobia.
Minds that will never learn or grow, as another poster pointed out.
And its unfortunate that this kind of thinking is allowed to lower the standard of this Forum - it drains the decency of a debate and is an impediment to genuine discussion

Well said Foxy!

I am not at all given to obsequiousness; quite the contrary, but I wish I could post in your style.

You try to explain to closed minds. My style is to grab them and swing them around by their bats and

FUZZY.....

the terrorism in South America was MARXIST..or.. 'DRUG' related.....of course it was not 'Catholic' terrorism.. good grief.

<<(since 9/11)Islam is now perceived by them as the religion of terrorists and suicide bombers.>>

Dear foxy.. you honestly have a lottt of learnin to do.
You speak from the peace and security of 'comfortable' Australia, and are projecting the niceness of our society onto Islam in an invalid way.

The problem with Islam.. is that.. ISLAM'.... the Muslims are by and large separated from the true and pure expression of Islam by culture and nominalism, coupled with dictatorial regimes.

So...only a person who has no clue about true Islam would immediately extrapolate the terrorism to 'every muslim'....

But the person who DOES have a few clues about Islam.. in the historic and doctrinal areas, will recognize clearly that it is a threat.

The context of Williams speech is irrelevant.. (sorry but in this case it is) he...a supposed Christian, is opening the door for Islamic Sharia law in his country. He knows his bible... and if he did not think of Galatians 1:6-9 when he said that..he surely should have.
(those verses are unambiguous)

SHARIA law.. is not about 'tolerance' its about spiritual imperialism.
and there is no more reason to open British law to Sharia than to Hindu law about killing animals.

I have a simple answer to the 'lets be tolerant' crowd when it comes to Sharia inroads to our legal system -"zero tolerance". Perhaps if Saudi Arabia had a 'sorry' day, and proclaimed that Christian Churches can be built there.... I might mellow ....slightly.

BACK TO THE TOPIC... "should... Muslim taxi drivers 'rights' to religious practice over-ride state law on discrimination of the disabled and drinking public.. PUH-LEASE....do any of you have a firm answer on this?

Boazy: "BACK TO THE TOPIC... "should... Muslim taxi drivers 'rights' to religious practice over-ride state law on discrimination of the disabled and drinking public.. PUH-LEASE....do any of you have a firm answer on this?"

The answer of course is No, and that is the case in every Western jurisdiction of which I'm aware. But you've been told that repeatedly. Please pay attention in future.

BOAZ

Have you no modesty? You speak for all Anglicans, now?

According to you, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior person in the Anglican Church (leave aside the monarch), is now just "a supposed Christian" because he doesn't know the Bible as well as you do.

Today you chastise the Anglican Archbishop. Tomorrow the Pope? The day after that, God herself?

Frank posed the question "BD, have you no modesty?" I have just recieved an answer to that question which has absolutely knocked the breath out of me:

In his post re banks and interest rates BD was doing his usual patronising number on Foxy. Reading posts in big chunks (been off-line for a while)this unchallenged and condescending b.s. got right up my nose and I pointed out that Foxy was twice the person he would ever be.

I've just read his response. He has convinced himself I am jealous of Foxy and am vying with her for his favours! He really did not understand that there was any criticism of his behaviour levelled, and is sure that I - mean little she-cat that I am - admire his manly strength. Or something.

I have read and re-read both my post and his reply because it gives a weird and somewhat creepy insight into the workings of his mind. If he can convulute what I said to come up with the response that he did then yeah. We are really wasting our time. God only knows what he actually reads into what everyone posts: maybe we are all charter members of the BD fan-club?

omigod

I just read that post Romany.

Boaz. You really are quite creepy and for someone who writes "don't you *get* it" a lot you do have serious comprehension issues.

I just looked at it too, and there is something decidedly 'creepy' about it.

Mind you, it's not a particularly unusual tone for our Boazy. That's one reason why I'm not very nice to him - that and his insistence on promulgating hatred incessantly, of course.

Vanilla & CJ,

However, did get one *shaky* CHUCKLE:) ! when the person who manages to divert *EVERY*! thread to a muslim/gays-under-the-bed scenario urged *ME* to stop DIVERTING the thread!:)

Boaz,
It is obvious the most recent posts by Romany, CJ Morgan, Vanilla, FrankGol, as far as the dog / Muslim taxi driver issue comes from CJ who agree's with you on Western policy on law.

The thing is they cannot debate unemotionally on isues of policy they are obsessed in their "screen scripted" imaturity on personality.

The only statement on policy comes from CJ "BACK TO THE TOPIC... "should... Muslim taxi drivers 'rights' to religious practice over-ride state law on discrimination of the disabled and drinking public? .. The answer of course is No,

Well_noted_Philo:)

and the content of the majority of recent posts by the "gang of 'n'" (can't be bothered counting) and (apart from CJ) their notable lack of focusing on the ISSUE (and you wonder why I use caps a lot?) and their pathalogical interest in now using 'creepy' as a kind of 'stolen generation/homophobia' politicized word and their dark drooling attention on a light hearted post re Fuzzy, is...well.. decidedly 'creeeepy' oops..I forgot...they have registered that and trademarked it:)

I fully expect to see the word 'creepy' cropping up in most of their posts from now on.. CJ was in that little room sticking pins into his Boaz dolls for a time..but therapy and heavy medication appears to have fixed that :) after all HE alone opted to actually respond to the question.. for which I'm thankful.

There is nowhere to go with Vanilla, Frank and Romany's 'dark' posts, but with CJ there is actually hope.

OK.. CJ.. given that you agree (as I suspect most others do also) that the law of the land should overide muslim religious peculiarities in such cases as guide dogs etc, can we take this one step further, to identify the extent of the problem, and see if there is possibly a tad more we could do than just 'agree'?

STEP 1. "how widespread"
MELBOURNE http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20544559-661,00.html
2000 Muslim taxi drivers out of 10,000

VANCOUVER.
Saidy responds that his Muslim beliefs do not permit him to take dogs in his taxi. North Shore Taxi filed a document with the Human Rights Tribunal stating that about half of its drivers are "unable to take animals in their taxis due to medical or religious reasons."

The last para is the *warning sign* 50%..HALF! the taxi drivers there are Muslim. Clearly, with that proportion of "muslim" drivers refusing service there is a serious social problem needing to be addressed in the strongest terms.
-Legally
-Public outrage
I expressed mine to the Minnesota Airport Commission...and they replied. In 2007 they unanimously decided to clamp down on errant Taxi drivers.

I SPEAK NOW... TO AVOID THIS: (the end game)
http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/canada-to-hear-human-rights-violations-complaints-against-mark-steyn/

We can't enter into a debate with people who have no ears.
People who profess to believe in God - yet what they practice goes against any religious teaching.

People whose narrowness and bigotry - transforms everything into a world of fear and guilt. It is an arrogant person who only sees their way as the right way. It is a smug person that judges others, bristles and condemns - and it is a contemptible person - who calling himself a Christian - preaches hatred against other religions. Going against the basic teachings of any reputable faith.

A person who does not show understanding, forgiveness, mercy - or charity towards others - should simply be ignored by all thinking
Forum posters.

FOXY... glad you finally see things as they really are..

1/ "Preaching hatred against other religions"

2/ "Goes against the teachings of any reputable faith"

Now..speaking of those who have no ears.. mind telling me how the following is NOT preaching hatred against 'specific' people and a specific religion..and then.. when you have finished, please explain why 'exposing' this... is anything other than 'public interest' information, vital to our future?

QUOTE: (Quran)

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

When you have given this the attention it deserves, and desist from your hateful name calling..and self righteous hypocrisy.. I'll know...that you 'have ears'.

In fact.. I'll also then know....that you are not in reality a Muslim in disguise because the speech in the above 'Words of Allah' is very much like yours.. when describing me.

Jesus said:

Matt 11:15 He who has ears, let him hear.

Matth 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

I challenge you...look at Matthew 11:20.. Please look it up.

HUMAN RIGHTS.

Here is a fascinating bit from the

Report into Islamophobia in the EU following 9/11

The largest monitoring project ever to be commissioned into Islamophobia was undertaken following 9/11 by the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).

From a total of 75 reports, 15 from each member state, a synthesis report was published in May 2002. Entitled "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001" it was co-authored by Chris Allen [2] and Professor Jørgen S. Nielsen at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

The report highlighted occasions in which citizens abused and sometimes violently attacked Muslims. Discrimination included verbal abuse, indiscriminately accusing Muslims of responsibility for the attacks, removing women's hijab, spitting, using the name "Usama" as a pejorative epithet, and assaults.

The report concluded that "a greater receptivity towards anti-Muslim and other xenophobic ideas and sentiments has, and may well continue, to become more tolerated."

HOW IRONIC is that last word of the last sentence :)

It is the COMMITTEE on 'tolerance' and they are whining about how something is becoming more 'tolerated'.... they are a total joke.

WHY? it may be asked, do they not address the intolerance and racism in the Quran itself.. a fact becoming increasingly known by the West, and which is part of the reason for the 'Islamophobia'?

WHY? do they not "condemn" such racist xenophobic intolerance?

Such committees would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.
I think the EUMC should be indicted as 'seditious criminals/an organized crime gang.'

They are a perfect example of a naive netherworld/new age secular organization trying to project it's own essential ideas onto Islam, which is beyond laughable.

BOAZ_David,
Could you please put forward some ideas how all this persecution could be brought to an end ? Critisism is ok but it doesn't get us anywhere as these threads clearly demonstrate. what we need are solutions. If we want to be tolerated we need to tolerate as well.. I don't expect others to change their culture or religion to suit me, neither should they expect it from me. We are in 2008 but we might as well be in 1008 judging by these threads. My proposal is to keep religion off the streets & out of kids' reach all will be well. If, what religious cranks tell us is true then why all the controversy ? How can we have Human Rights when we have moron religious crap spoiling everyday life for so many innocent people. If people don't want to be stereotyped then they should refrain from behaving stereotyped. When in Rome do as the Romans do & you will find it'll all sort itself out. When I migrated to Australia I did so because I wanted to live in a western style society. If I waned to live in a Muslim style society I would have gone to a Muslim country. I don't believe there is an Islamophobia but as sure as hell there is an Islamania.