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?