“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.