NATION OF AZTLAN...is a movement in the USA of Chicano people.. Mexican/Indian heritage believe or assert that they are the rightful owners of South western United States, and the implications are:

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=811

a/ No person of that heritage can be considered 'illegal' when they cross the border from Mexico into USA.

b/ The 'White' people are the true Illegals.

Now.. the points I hope to discuss in all this are the following:

1/ The issue of historic takeover of other peoples. (Indigenous vs colonialists/settlers) When the new society has emerged with overwhelming 'settler/colonialist' heritage, culture, language and laws, and indigenous people are subject to all that should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged?

2/ How should the 'Settler/colonialist' group, respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous population? (such movements might be considering revolution of the violent kind or.. of the ballot box kind)

3/ If such movements exist, (and they do) is the mention of, discussion of, or the highlighting of such movements 'adding to the problem' or.. 'stirring up hatred' or.. 'tarring all indigenous people with the same brush'
OR
is it 'informing people of an impending danger and alerting them that the time to act is 'now' rather than when its too late.

Of course, many will recognize that this connects directly to the charges often laid at my own doorstep of 'Whack-a-Mossie' or.. 'Inciting hatred' etc.. but for the sake of this discussion, lets keep it general and leave the Muslims out of it, so we might be more impartial to the issue itself.

Background viewing: (Video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxy-q2rDpI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwO457C8bQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBONmdeRvpM&feature=related

You'll hang your fear-and-loathing hat on absolutely anything, won't you Boaz?

As far as I can discover, the most violent act that has so far been perpetrated by these people is the burning of an American flag in 1998.

Look, Boaz, there will always be people like this, with visions of undeserved and unearned grandeur, who will shoot their mouths off at every opportunity. I've met them at dinner parties, I've met them in the streets, I've met them in pubs.

They are essentially harmless. The problem they face is that very few people are fanatical enough to do more than mutter under their breath and hope the nutter involved would simply go away.

The YouTube stuff should have provided you with a clue. The pictures were from a single Mayday march in 2007, given voiceovers from what sounded like a sparsely-attended church hall rally. The pictures of the two guys surreptitiously treading on the American flag was almost pure comedy, at the level of a couple of schoolkids making faces behind teacher's back.

The questions you raise are, of course, totally valid. It does however beg the question why you chose such a pathetically impotent and risible movement with which to background the issues?

Pretending that Atzlan has any real credibility does a disservice to the points you wish to discuss.

Why not be honest, and use Australia as your starting point?

"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

"How should European settlers respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous Australian population?"

Forget the last question for a while, until we have sorted out the first two, eh?

Now this is slightly disturbing. We have a group of people exercising their right to free speech and expression, but it is seen as seditious by people like BOAZ who obviously disagree with them or find it threatening. Presumably BOAZ wants to see them silenced or imprisoned. This is why sedition laws are so obnoxious to the free citizen. Democracies are about change and if these people reach a majority of opinion, then there is nothing you can do about it unless you want a dictatorship. Let me put it this way. If our government started killing citizens at will, under current sedition laws you could not oppose or overthrow them with violent means, but would have to await your turn at being killed. That's absurd.

Pericles.. you could have actually been constructive if you'd left out the 'fear and loathing' bit.. which rather tarnished the rest of your reasonable post.

The issues raised are reasonable, the transparently 'propogandist' nature of some of the background is easily seen, as you noticed and as I expected views to notice.

Where you come undone is here:

"They are essentially harmless."

You generalize, and rigidly categorize ALL 'whacko movements' into that slot, and you have no right to do so, because it's plain wrong.

On one of my 'adventures' at the "Anti Howard hate rally" (The real name deserved by the 'IR Laws' rally a while back) one of the last speakers was firebrand indigenous activist Gary Foley. If you think Mosely was a stirrer, you should have heard Gary.. he was red hot.
I fail to see what connection an 'aboriginal activist' had with IR Laws but you can figure that one out. Given that there was a crowd of 25,000 I hardly think that unleasing such 'hate' speech to a public platform is not 'dangerous'.

The danger is when groups of people are manipulated by people with agenda's.

So, bringing this into the Australian context, my question stands..."Criticizing, examining, scrutinizing such incidents and the ideas behind such incidents" is....

'worsening the problem'?

or..

'Informing the public about dangerous trends'?

You seem to think its always the first, and never the 2nd

If, for example the Foleyites had an specific agenda "Retake Australia in the name of Aboriginals"...if.... then, to highlight this publically.. is 'hate speech' or... 'a timely warning' ?

"The danger is when groups of people are manipulated by people with agenda's."

You know what? If you want to do this you will have to arrest all church groups infiltrating government and manipulating people. That sounds very fair to me since they have the most influence of any group and are hence the most "dangerous".

The Catholic church are the most seditious, since they answer to the Vatican first and not their home country.

Boaz,
Your comments reveal a distastefull agenda of your own.
Seems your visit to the "anti Howard hate rally " has given you more fuel to pour into your forever fear inspired posts,this time about Native people .
"i'm just warning people - you will all be pushed back into the ocean "[My words].
It is unhelpfull if you are interested in promoting peace and harmony in Australia in the long term .

And Those dammed Tibetan Monks - they are a problem too !

One wonders if you haven't been writing to the Chinese Embassy for years and with some success ,with foreknowledge of their dangerous wish for a fair go for their people as made obvious by the Dali Lama's books .

Hi Steele and kartiya.....

glad to see this subject is bringing out some interesting perspectives.

What I observe though, is both of you have focused on the 'mention' of seditious movements and then blamed 'me' for some kind of 'agenda' :)

Lets get some "clear" thinking going here.
1/ Free speech is not something I'm opposed to, I absolutely support it for you and for me.. by this time you should know this.

2/ The PART of 'free' speech which I am opposed to is that which directly threatens the Government! and the vast majority of people.
The concept behind the nation of Aztlan is very seditious relative to the present government and prevailing culture.

I cannot disagree that THAT prevailing government and culture was established through brutality, invasion, theft of land,ill treatment of natives etc etc.. I totally admit that.
In fact..I suppor the right of any person to PUBLICALLY say all that.
I feel that to say such is quite justified. I'd even feel that IF the aggrieved people 'could' get up and re-take it, then that would be a historic response just as valid as the original one which took it from them. (no, those monks in Tibet are not pesky, they are hero's)

But here's the problem. If ur going to say such things, make sure you can back it up...or.. the obvious may happen.*KerrrrUNCH*

Being as I am, a part of the 'new' society of Australia, the one which shaped the nation as it is, I must unquestionably be alert to any movement which seeks to undermine it. The best I can offer to indigenous people is.. "if you can't beat em, join em" There might be ways of providing for elements of restoration of land, but this could never be done in such a way as to endanger the security of the nation as it now is.

All I'm saying, is this. "To discuss" various movements, and to highlight dangers or even just 'perceived' dangers in them, is not hate speech... it is free speech and constructive or protective dialog.

....continued.

Hate speech is not about 'mentioning' facts or trends, but it is rallying people to actively despise and punish and harm those who are being discussed.
I advocate nothing more than responsibly selective immigration and careful application of anti terror laws against people who parade down Sydney streets with their little 5 yr old brother (or son) on their shoulders teaching them to say "F*_k Yahood" over and over. Now THAT...is hate speech.

EXAMPLE. I'd prefer to avoid the mention of Islam here, but I've just received a message from a Muslim on youtube with whom I have been having a very serious debate.

To him, I claimed "Islam permits child abuse" and supported this claim by saying that surah 65:4 permits "marriage" and consumation with pre-pubescent girls.

His reaction was predictable: (selected quotes from his messages)

1/ "Your lack of respect for Muhammad(saws) is nothing but pure ignorance."

2/ WAKE UP MATE; ARE YOU INTOXICATED?.......THERE IS NO WORD "CHILDERN" IN 65:4 (different Muslim)

3/ However inshaAllah your words are only as heavy as a twig, but I will cut these dry twigs with my words, like a sharp sword. Hence forth your pathetic weapon will show its true reflection from my word, weaker than what it appears. No more than a crooked stem. (same one as for quote 1 above)

4/ Lastly (many in between where he claimed I found info from a 'hate site' etc..the usual stuff) he admits as follows:

<<*65:4 permits sexual abuse of pre-pubescent girls.

There is one thing that I want to thank you for, you have opened my eyes to new knowledge in Islam. That is the verse pertaining to the divorce of a non menstruation female.
I asked a scholar, take heed I'm saying scholar whom graduated from the second best Islamic University of Egypt. I showed him this verse and he gratefully admitted that this verse does include a young girl that hasn't reached her period.>>

David ,
I am not going to agree or disagree about your revelations re the Islamic written word .

Just what AZTLAN political policies have to do with young girls is another bit of a Boaz puzzle .

However, some Governments and their leaders ARE to put it simply , "crap"!for a large percentage of those they govern.

Many ordinary folk rely on the sedition of the brave to get some sort of balance back in their countries and lift them up from poverty,early death and despair . That is fine by me .

If we had continued in the Howard , Liberal [not all] and National parties policies and attitudes similar to yours ,we would have sedition by the paddy wagon full.

One way or another they were going to go and yes we are lucky we live in a Democracy-just .

kartiya jim: "Just what AZTLAN political policies have to do with young girls is another bit of a Boaz puzzle"

I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that Boazy's mind doesn't work quite the same way as the minds of those of us who operate by means of rationality and logic. As far as I can tell here, Boazy's trying to set up an analogy whereby he declares that an American ethnic/indigenous nationalist movement is "seditious" and it is therefore reasonable to curtail their freedom of speech while allowing paranoid members of the dominant culture to say anything they like about the minority group in the name of national security.

According to Boazy's convoluted reasoning, this is clearly to be compared with the situation of the Muslim minority in Australia: if some Muslims say something that Boazy deems to be "seditious", then that entitles him to impugn an entire religion based upon his expert interpretation of some verses in their sacred texts.

Or something like that. At least it keeps him off the streets.

Dear David,

I googled, 'What is Aztlan?' and came up with the following site:

http://www.mayorno.com/WholsMecha.html

Which may be of interest to other posters.

It does appear that these Aztlan 'cults' are rapidly extending their influence within California's Hispanic population, particularly among students in the university system. They are anti-American, and
pro - civil disobedience - and live with the false illusion that they are being racially discriminated against because they are Latinos while totally dismissing the idea that maybe it is their ideology that is being discriminated against.

One of their goals is to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico - allowing Mexicans free access to the US. Their claims do not separate fact from opinion and political propaganda. Students within
these organisations are taught separatism, victimisation, nationalism, and a complete lack of patriotism towards the United States.

cont'd

David, I'm not sure how the United States should respond to these
'cults.'

If they ban them - their popularity will probably go underground and could increase.

To ignore them is probably equally unwise. The official national symbol of MEChA (Chicano Student Movement - Aztlan) is an eagle holding a machete-like weapon and a stick of dynamite.

I guess it all depends on the size of these 'cults' and how much influence they have within the student movement and the Latino communities...

Any more thoughts?

“If our government started killing citizens at will”

Now there is something really absurd.

Sedition laws frighten the soft-left because they use an awful lot of emotive language at times to attack our democratically elected gov’t. But the laws aren’t really aimed at them, the soft-left are merely the unpleasant but inevitable result of our “liberal education”. Sedition laws are designed to deal with those in our community who encourage attacks against our people and our gov’t. They are the only way we can prevent people like Hilali encouraging his followers to hate us and to take steps to punish us.

I think it is instructive to note that the soft-left support anti vilification laws only when the perpetrators are WASPs.

It seems that vilification by any other group is not really vilification.

Those who honestly believe that those in our communities who hate us with such vehemence are harmless should be made to go and live with them for a bit.

...continued from the last 2 posts.

CONCLUSION. Contrary to the invalid claims of the likes of Pericles C.J. Moran and TRTL who maintain I 'cherry pick' ...here we have the clear admission, word for word, from a Muslim, who appealed to a scholar...that I was 100% correct all along.

Given this, it would be fitting and proper to mention this aspect of Islam as a source of social concern for Australia.

BACK to Aztlan. Pericles claims 'it was just one rally, in 2007 and Pericles poo poo's it as 'nothing really'. He ridicules the idea that they could or should be taken seriously enough to say they are a danger to national security...I suppose when a bloke in a theatre dressed in a clown costume yells 'FIRE' Pericles will say "Oh c'mon people.. look at him..dressed (cough) in clown suit..don't (choke) take him (cough)seriously"

KARTIYA Jim.. you ask what Islam etc has to do with Aztlan and sedition.
The Aztlan movement was just an example. The 'topic' is not that movement...it is 'hate speech' and asks the legitimate question "Is the discussion of such movements (or religions) in forums like this, and pointing out their dangers, 'hate' speech or simply public debate.

So, in regard to Aztlan, I'm simply saying that "discussing" them..and underlining that IF they grew strong enough, they would (as promised) take over the USA, and some reportedly said they would do it by sedition; is surely not 'hate' speech.
THIS is the more important vid to consider.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

This vid is produced by Aztlan motivated people.

34000+ viewings...this is absolutely seditious. “we are in a civil war, united Latino's will win”
There is not 4 or 5 people in this rally there are many 1000s.
Democrats rely on the Latino vote.. are they going to bring the big stick on these people?
The vid speaks of a 'process in progress' Latinification and the goal of total power.

This...is the end game of uncontrolled immigration.

Dear Foxy....

thanx for that additional information. My thoughts are pretty much along the lines of our existing anti terror laws.. that those advocating violence in persuit of their political goals should be stopped.

It worries me awfully, that such movements as this (Aztlan) which is by no means (as Pericles would have us believe) a small one nor are their goals benign as you have demonstrated.

CJ cannot get away from his little dolls and pins :) (he says its 'my' fantasy but weeeee know ..right)....

Oh how I will celebrate when CJ actually addresses an 'issue' for a change.. man that willl be a happy day.

Given what Foxy posted..it should be abundantly clear to all reasonable minds, that to "discuss" and criticize such movements as Aztlan and similar ones.. (or those who have in their unseen kernel, beliefs and doctrines which are socially abominable) is nothing more than social responsiblity.

The problem comes not in discussing such movements, but in taking it a further unlawful step and saying 'LET'S GET EM'and suggesting they be stopped by 'mob' violence.

I absolutely do not agree that to stage public protests, information seminars, 'awareness raising events' is anything other than quite lawful activity as long as such events do not specifically advocate physical harm.

As to 'emotional' hurt.. thats a different question. I (and each bible believing Christian is) am 'hurt' (but not harmed) each time someone ridicules the resurrection of Christ. If they said "Oh.. BD is a twit for believing in fairy tales, so lets ambush him at his next potest thingy and beat the cr*p out of him" now that's where it goes haywire and becomes unlawful hate speech

Boaz

OK, go ahead and discuss Aztlan without the emotion and in an objective manner, but I don't think you can, you have already interpreted Foxy's post as being in complete agreement with you, even though her last line was:

"I guess it all depends on the size of these 'cults' and how much influence they have within the student movement and the Latino communities..."

Foxy said it all depends on the size and the influence of these groups. Thought I’d repeat that.

However, where is the link between this California based group and the plight of our indigenous people?

And why is it so important to bang on relentlessly about all ‘terrorist’ groups? I’m not entirely convinced that Aztlan fits into this category.

How about making friends with people instead of labelling them simply because they don't follow your particular system of belief? Despite your most fervent fantasies, atheists do not want to “beat the crap” out of you. We just wish you would approach issues in a less hysterical fashion and stop making assumptions about people because they’re not evangelists like you.

All your discussion threads are about fear. Boaz, there is a lot of good in this world, more than there is bad, but you can't see that. In fact, I posit that you don't want to see the good, because you are on your personal crusade that strict adherence to the christian religion is the only way and by denigrating anything and everything you think you are promoting your religion.

Consider this: there are many paths to peace and promoting fear is not one of them.

You know, Boaz, I am becoming increasingly convinced that you not only don't read what others write, but you don't even bother to read what you write yourself.

>>BACK to Aztlan. Pericles claims 'it was just one rally, in 2007 and Pericles poo poo's it as 'nothing really'<<

The reference to the rally was in relation to the YouTube video.

"The pictures were from a single Mayday march in 2007"

The pictures, Boaz. The pictures in the video.

Look, it may be that Atzlan have armed themselves with North Korean nuclear weapons and are about to detonate it under Fort Knox, one step ahead of Bruce Willis.

But for certain i) there is no evidence of this and ii) their mothers probably wouldn't let them get that far anyway.

As I pointed out, "the most violent act that has so far been perpetrated by these people is the burning of an American flag in 1998"

And hey, did you not start a thread that dissed the whole idea of hate crimes anyway?

>>It's only a very short step from 'violent' hate crimes to 'spoken' hate crimes. The whole concept of 'hate crimes' is rediculous [sic]<<

So what's with the "hate speech" headline, eh?

But the most annoying part is not that you don't listen, either to yourself or others, but that you never finish a conversation that you start.

As soon as anyone comes back with an "ah, but..." refutation of your position, you disappear into the woodwork like a skink escaping the cat.

Fractelle...I nodded in agreement with Foxy's last line.. why would I not? Of course it is obvious that the size of such movements will determine the level of danger... the point I'm trying to make, is pretty much this. A man with his young son walk through the bush. Dad says to son... "Son...bend that small sapling" the boy does it. Further down, they come to a young and thin tree..but bigger than the sapling. "Son, break that one" "Dad..I can't do it.. its too big.. too strong"

If there is anything to learn about the Aztlan issue in particular and embryo 'liberation' movements in general, it is found in the above illustration. If you feel there is no value in monitoring, checking, exposing or 'out'ing small movements based on their espoused objectives, then we have little to discuss, because clearly we don't share the same understanding of 'objective' history.

I can just imagine you and Pericles as Aboriginals minimizing the 'small and insignificant' arrival of these blokes in red uniforms... "Oh come come Widgaree.. do you REALLY see much danger in these clowns on the beach" ?

How big is a fertilized egg? how big does it become?

All I'm going to do is repeat the 'point'... "It is not only 'not' hate speech to discuss seditious movements, their nature and where they might lead, it is a social responsiblity"

If you and Pericles wish to argue with something.. then argue with that rather than trying to cross every 't' and dot every 'i' of previous correspondence.

Your illustration would seem to support my contention rather than yours, Boaz.

>>I can just imagine you and Pericles as Aboriginals minimizing the 'small and insignificant' arrival of these blokes in red uniforms... "Oh come come Widgaree.. do you REALLY see much danger in these clowns on the beach" ?<<

Those "clowns on the beach" were real, they were immediate, they were very, very close, they were armed with deadly weapons, and they did not need to soup up a YouTube video in order to make their presence felt.

I would suggest that in this case, Boaz, being around these Atzlan guys would subject you and the rest of the world to no greater danger than a slight singeing of the backs of your legs, as they surreptitiously burn another flag behind your back and run away giggling to post movies of their fun on the internet.

Your self-imposed mission seems to be to find as many of these mobs of weirdos as you can, and run around shouting that the sky is falling.

And we know why you do it, despite your protestations. It is to help you justify your unreasonable stance on Islam, by stirring up a generalized fear of imminent invasion.

So let's get back to the meat of this. I repeat what I said before:

>>Pretending that Atzlan has any real credibility does a disservice to the points you wish to discuss.

Why not be honest, and use Australia as your starting point?

"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

"How should European settlers respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous Australian population?"<<

These are your questions, Boaz. Let's hear your answers.

Boaz,
Do you really believe in your heart that your Christian armies and settler invaders that did all their wilfull destruction to Indigenous People under the watchfull Eye of your All mighty God, can not expect the same actions to be bestowed on them by God at some time in history - when he considers the time is Right ?

Make no mistake Boaz - they are coming .

And Many will have Crosses on their chests and Bibles in their kits as they march toward you .

Pericles.. sure.. lets talk about those things.. BUT WAIT... 'if' we do, then are we not 'tarring all indigenous Aussies with the same seditious brush' ? :) bingo... that IS the very point of the thread.... 'that' is why I raised it. You can woffle about me justifying my 'un'reasonable stance about Islam.. but then in that very sentence you show your own biased position.

We have to my knowledge ZERO indigenous Australians convicted of 'sedition/terrorism' and there were 517,000 total population in 2006.

In the case of Muslims, out of a population of roughly 400,000 we have 12 men on trial in Melbourne, 11 in Sydney, and many on the 'watch' list. So, even aside from that, Islamic terrorism is a world wide phenomena, so there nothing unreasonable about discussing that in the Australian context.

JIM.... what a great lead in :) "Don't you think...etc" mate.. you NEEED to read Habbakuk in the Old Testament. Here is a tidbit

HABBAKUK'S CRY...

2 How long, O LORD, must I call for help,
but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, "Violence!"
but you do not save?

3 Why do you make me look at injustice?
Why do you tolerate wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
there is strife, and conflict abounds.

That was describing life in ISRAEL.. Gods people...

GOD'S ANSWER.

5 "Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.

6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwelling places not their own

woops... God, used the pagan Iraqi's to punish Israel? :)

Hmmmm *worried look*

Boazy, can you just this once avoid the biblical crap and the mozzie-whacking and simply answer Pericles' questions?

Mind you, your last post raises another: how many of these Aztlan activists have been arrested on sedition or terrorism charges?

These discussions make me somewhat curious as to what boaz's opinion of Senator Joe McCarthy is.

If it's positive... well, that opens up some interesting questions.

If it's negative, I'd be interested to hear boaz, how we would be able to adopt your views without provoking another McCarthyist witchhunt.

Non sequitur, Boaz.

>>Pericles.. sure.. lets talk about those things.. BUT WAIT... 'if' we do, then are we not 'tarring all indigenous Aussies with the same seditious brush'?<<

Asking and answering these questions involves precisely zero tar, and a complete absence of brushes.

"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

"How should European settlers respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous Australian population?"

These are neutral questions. They do not in themselves assume that an indigenous movement to restore lost sovereignty is by its nature seditious.

But, somewhat interestingly, you make this automatic connection.

The reality is that you don't need to promote insurrection, which is a prerequisite for modern-day sedition to exist, as a means to pursue these goals. Let's face it, in the most literal interpretation of "sedition", it would not even be possible to appeal against a court's decision, or to suggest a change to the tax structure.

In Australia, opponents of conscription in WWI were convicted of sedition, as was a public servant who in 1960 advocated that PNG become independent. So it would seem, prima facie, to be a somewhat flexible, and - dare I say it - political concept.

But I think we can agree that in today's world, peaceful protests don't cross the line between freedom of speech and seditious libel.

So, having taken sedition out of the equation, would you like to have another stab at the questions, Boaz?

Boazy ,
We are all waiting with interest for your answers to Pericles legitimate and timely questions .

Boaz
'I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwelling places not their own'

Interesting what is happening in Holland. The proud promoters of perversion and 'tolerance' is fast becoming very intolerant. Some politicians have to walk around 24/7 with bodyguards due to the 'religion of peace. Most in Holland now say Islamic immigration was a mistake. Guess what? To late.

And back home in Australia, a guard outside a Melbourne Abortion Clnic was fatally shot, after protests by anti-choicers.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s330340.htm

Christians doing the lord's work.

Fractelle

Funny how you have to go back to 2001 to find one fruitcake while 80000 plus babies are murdered each year. Sound logic?

ANSWERS TO PERICLES TIMELY QUESTIONS.

1/
"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

ANSWER.. they should be not only discouraged, but outlawed, where such movements seek to attain their goals by violent revolution.

2/
"How should European settlers respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous Australian population?"

ANSWER. The 'plight' of the indigenous Australians will not be addressed by 'reversing history'.. To do so would only create chaos and suffering for millions. History has moved on, just as for every country. The primary reason for the 'non solution' aspect of this answer, is that the Indigenous people are only around 400,000, and the non Indigenous are 22,000,000+ so.. no matter how passionate and well equipped they may become, the odds are against any success. I respond to this question/issue with: "Embrace indigenous Australians as far as possible, include them, build them up, assist them..share our lives with them"

In cases where Indigenous people are a majority, (Zimbabwe) I do support reversing history. (preferably with some better methods than Robert Mugabe's though.)

CJ.. what you describe as 'Biblical Crap' is evidence of your rather limited understanding of Gods movement in history. I recommend a thorough reading of the Old Testament to remedy this lamentable condition :)

But before this degenerates into a 'whack Boaz' cesspool... let's remember the topic. "Seditious movements..and hate speech"

My assertion is....that to discuss such movements is quite legitimate.. thats it in a nutshell. I stand totally amazed at the level of opposition to this simple principle of open free discussion.

If we get bogged down in specifics, we are likely to get off the track.

Runner..duely noted bro :)

Boazy, will it ever be possible for you not to bring Islam into a single post for an entire thread?

Runner, unless you can read the Dutch newspapers and read Dutch commentary in the Dutch language don't make sweeping statements.

You are referring to bottle bleach blond Wilders who is becoming an international embarrassment. He had to admit himself that reaction in the Netherlands to his overly hyped up film was very muted. It was a big non-event in the Netherlands.

I would like to point out to you that that nation of 'perversion' has a much, much lower abortion rate than Australia. It is rare for teenagers to get pregnant there, unlike here. Drug use is lower and is started at a later age than it is in UK or Australia.

Boazy, give the conspiracy theories a rest. The majority of Non-Christians do not have it in for Christian White fundamentalists. I thought that Evangelical Christians were waiting impatiently for the end of the world anyway now that they are saved.

Pericles re cast your questions really well.

Dear YVONNE...I invite you to the thread "Self mutilation...why" please check my posts. (and if you have any constructive(only) insights, please share them)

Note how Boazy sidesteps the question:

"they should be not only discouraged, but outlawed, where such movements seek to attain their goals by violent revolution"

So they're acceptable as long as they don't use violent methods? Sounds good to me, but is there any suggestion that the Aztlan activists are violent, or that Aboriginal activists are?

Interesting logic with respect to the second question. Boazy claims that the Indigenous rights movement in Australia is doomed to failure because there's only about 400,000 of them in a total population of around 22,000,000.

However, Boazy makes interminable paranoid claims about the dangers to our society and culture from an even smaller minority of Muslims. Given that his whole purpose with this thread is to justify his eternal Islamophobic blathering, this seems just a tad anomalous.

Boazy,

Need your help here I am struggling to see the difference between your actions and those whom you criticize.

Since I started on this forum (almost 3 years ago), your main purpose and contribution to OLO is to incite fear of Islam and Muslims in Australia. Basic fact about humans and animals is that they attack what they fear. While you don't incite or encourage violence, you drive all the way in the legally grey zone (ie inciting fear).

Care to explain the difference?

There is so much nonsense here about islam and assumptions i'm going to refrain from wading into it, except to call it out. YOU PEOPLE DID NOT CARE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11 AND LAST I CHEKCED DO NOT CARE ABOUT PRIOR CONTEXT NOR ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS THE IRA. I will instead address something said on page 3 by Paul L.

> "If our government started killing citizens at will”
> Now there is something really absurd.

It's so absurd it's been happening throughout history. Substitute kill with oppression or anything else antithetical to a free society and you get the same conclusion. Gandhi's non-violence movement is simply a fairy tale. Nothing would have happened had he been murdered or imprisoned by the government. If he had been Indians would likely have died without the sovereignty of their country. That's THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PHRASE "FREEDOM **FIGHTER**". People like you Paul L. are too ignorant to realise what freedom actually is, or you're too partisan or authoritarian to care.

> Sedition laws frighten the soft-left because they use an awful lot of emotive language at times to attack our democratically elected gov’t.

Ok.... this is extremely ignorant and pretentious...Tally the "War on Terror", "Protect the children", "Women are victims" rubbish that has been trotted out over and over and over again in this forum and by the media and by politicians. You will find it is employed more or less equally by the left AND right sides of politics in Australia.

Your jab at the left too reveals that you are a partisan fool. Sedition is a political weapon used against the citizenry. Any crime of violence is ALREADY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. There is really no need for sedition laws, unless you are opposed to free speech. Then, you can prosecute thought crime against groups of people.

Paul L. > Sedition laws are designed to deal with those in our community who encourage attacks against our people and our gov’t. They are the only way we can prevent people like Hilali encouraging his followers to hate us and to take steps to punish us.

Considering the amount of State-propogated hate over the last few years against Islam and Muslims, the lies spread against those who were suspects (eg Habib), and the lies leading to a war with a sovereign nation (Iraq), your comment is laughable.

Racism against these people under the State (Australia) during this period was allowed to spread unmitigated. Acts of violence were planned against muslims in Cronulla etc...and actively promoted by media such as radio. The federal police became easily politicised and with ASIO, broke the civil liberties of innocent people.

So when you say, these things are "designed to DEAL WITH those in our community who encourage attacks against OUR people and OUR gov’t", you are really saying, we can do whatever we like to those minorities we want to attack, but they can't do a thing to correct the injustice and express their grievances (if they do, they are arrested and imprisoned for thought crime).

Well, Boaz, I'll grant that you paid lip service to my request that you answer your own questions.

But in reality you simply sidestepped them, didn't you??.

"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

The question that you elected to answer was:

"...should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty, who seek to attain their goals by violent revolution, be encouraged or discouraged in Australia?"

That hardly needs an intellectual response.

The original question, however, remains unanswered.

Then there was:

"How should European settlers respond to movements to change/reverse history and address the plight of the indigenous Australian population?"

Here, the question you chose to answer was:

"Will the plight of the indigenous Australians be addressed by reversing history?"

Which, when you think about it, is a pretty dumb question, since it is not possible to "reverse history."

The question you originally asked was in fact the important one. How should we react to these movements?

They exist, of course, and we know, intellectually, that none of their aims would be achieved by re-creating Australia in the image of 1788.

But the question remains, how should we react to them? Should we ban them, even if they pursue their aims peacefully and legitimately?

It is disingenuous of you to say:

>>to discuss such movements is quite legitimate... I stand totally amazed at the level of opposition to this simple principle of open free discussion.<<

I don't see any resistance here to that principle. Do you?

But wait, what's this?

You propose that "might is right". There's more of us than them, so stuff it.

There are more native Zimbabweans than white settlers, so Mugabe is in the clear. European settlers eliminated the native population by shooting them, so Australia can now ignore them with impunity. And presumably, since Pol Pot did such a good job of disposing of any dissention in Cambodia, QED he must have been right.

Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

Dear David,

I've done a bit more investigating into 'Aztlan.' I was curious to know more about them.

It seems that it isn't some sort of a 'cult' but a legitimate Chicano Student Organisation - that promotes Hispanic issues and studies of Hispanic culture - especially on campuses whose student body is made up of more that 50% Hispanic.

One of the most popular web-sites in California is:

http://www.Aztlan.net/... or

'La Voz de Aztlan.'

With over 100,000 hits.

It's run by the 'Aztlan Communications Network,' which is a very large Network in Los Angeles, California.

Thanx Foxy.. all relevant information is valuable. I just add though.. with that 'movement' there appear to be some at the top.. who wish to use it for revolutionary purposes. This fits the classic 'pick an issue of social disenfrancizement and build on it' strategy of Marxists. I noted that a picture of Che Guavara was in the crowd...

PERICLES..

"Should we ban them, even if they pursue their aims peacefully and legitimately?"

Depends on what they 'AIM's are Pericles. If their 'aim' is to take over Australia and establish a 'Black Rule' government, where European Settlers are instantly relegated to some backwater....or become the 'slaves' of the new Black Power regime... then.. they should be banned. If they persue such an agenda with 'peaceful' means, i.e.. letter box drops.. pamphlets.. information days.. it makes no difference.. the ultimate goal is our subjugation.
So.. we'd have to examine the actual goals.

The apparent contradiction in my posturing in these issues is due to the complex nature of them...and the simple fact that all history is a chronicle of "might not be right, but it rules".

F.H. *vigorous handshake*.. welcome back. My purpose here, is to present Christ, and to highlight anything which seems like a danger or threat to freedom to do that. Many may have missed it, but a long time ago, I said..that the ICV action against the 2 Dannies utterly galvanized me.

You can trace pretty much all I say about Islam.. to that single event. Since then, my knowledge of Islam has expanded vastly, and I totally know the difference between 'your' version of Islam, and that of lets say "Abu Izzadeen" recently (at LONG last) arrested in London for inciting hate/violence etc

Unfortunately for you, not all Muslims share your gentle approach. Nor do they see Islam as you do. Now..I can appreciate how 'you' from your own mind-set, can seek to project your calm and friendly Islam as though it was 'the' Islam. We all do it.(me2) and that's the dilemma.. I don't attack 'your' Islam but that of Izzadeen and company.

I think this has taken us about as far as we need to go, Boaz.

You have changed the question so often, that it has become meaningless.

You started off asking:

>>should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged?<<

You have now qualified this to the point where it is no longer a realistic question.

You are now apparently only talking about movements that involve wanting to "take over Australia and establish a 'Black Rule' government, where European Settlers are instantly relegated to some backwater....or become the 'slaves' of the new Black Power regime", and "where such movements seek to attain their goals by violent revolution", and "create chaos and suffering for millions."

There is clearly no place in a civilized society for violent revolutions that oppress a section of the community.

However, an answer to the original question would still be more informative, if you can bring yourself to address it.

My own answer would be that such movements should be neither encouraged or discouraged, but so long as they remain within the law they should not be banned.

If your next question is "should we therefore change the law?", my answer would be a firm "no".

Pericles.. yes.. it has pretty much exhausted itself.

My view would be as is yours. "As long as they remain within the law"

For me..that includes 'not advocating anything outside the law'

If also means that if 'they' seek to change the law to advance their cause, I'll do my bit to fight such changes.

Sound reasonable?

The only dimension where I become 'hysterical' so to speak is where people are advocating 'beheading'.. 'exterminating'... 'overthrow of governments'.... and I hardly think you would not have some concerns over those things...right?

cheers.

Boaz says he is going to fight law changes that may lead to
"Subjugation ".
He is worried about becoming "Slaves of the Black Power Regime" - and all this is done legally in a democratic process.

Boaz is leaning towards sedition himself .

This divisive sort of thinking simply encourages those actions by politically aware black and white people that Boaz is so concerned about .

Why would you invent such a beat-up ?

Boazy: "The only dimension where I become 'hysterical' so to speak is where people are advocating 'beheading'.. 'exterminating'... 'overthrow of governments'.... "

I dunno about that old chap - you've seemed pretty hysterical to me about much less serious issues, like halal food, taxi drivers and university timetables, not to mention a few obscure passages from Muslim scripture.

But I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

MOOD LABEL "jovial"

CJ... I spose I should put a 'mood label' on my posts :) so you know if I'm
-Concerned.
-Angry.
-Concerned+angry
-Outraged
-Hysterical.

Jim.. what are u going on about mate? *scratches head*.....

I'm seriously concerned about ANY embryonic movement which seeks to racially subjugate others. That would include any
-"white supremacist" movement, or..
-"black power" movement..or
-"any religious movement with a doctrinal and historical track record of such"

You see.. once u have felt the rough end of the 'cultural/religious supremacist stick'... you remember the whelts for a longgggg time.

The problem is, where, like Malaysia, they had/have (unsure of it now) what they called the '5 sensitive issues' which were not even allowed to be discussed in a coffee shop!
-Malay racial supremacy.
-Islam as State religion.

and a few others.

I came through Malaysia in 1969 just as race riots had broken out, and the carnage they brought is the reason for those 'sensitive' issues.

Of course.. the solution to all this, is for the government to embark on a policy of.. wait for it.. CJ and PERICLES.. dont LOOK!

"ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE" in the sense that I personally mean that term, i.e.. a promoted, encouraged blending of all ethnicities including indigenous, such that a new 'Australian' identity emerges which does not 'cling' to historical tribalism about everything done to them since Adam was a boy.

Boaz ,
If a small group of people change laws legally and the Government says OK, you have to put up with their changes .

The idea of farmers bringing in large numbers of Pacific Islanders on a temporary basis may well give you more sleepless nights . They a will no doubt will offer you yet another different perspective on life .

What was the racism you copped that has made your thinking so rigid ?

In the meanwhile I'm looking forward to a Kava !

Golly Gosh Jim... and I thought my work was done :)

You said:

<<The idea of farmers bringing in large numbers of Pacific Islanders on a temporary basis may well give you more sleepless nights . They a will no doubt will offer you yet another different perspective on life.>>

Matey..I would be overjoyed at the thought of pacific Islanders coming here.. in fact.. I might be reasonably accused of 'drug induced euphoria' :)

I have not the slightest problem with Pacific Islanders coming here and I always reach out to them whenever I see them in gym or supermarket.

It wouldn't bother me if the whole of Tonga came here :) you see.. most of them are serious Christians..and I get along rather well with them.
Samoa..same
Maori's... many Christians but not all.

Then..shock horror..they might even intermarry with our 'white' girls :) and create blended people.. slightly flat noses, good suntan... bi lingual... hmmm no..we must stop this at all costs :) (BD looks over at his Asian wife and mixed children)