Well.. we've had this discussion before, but recent events make it very relevant again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe3gnF0L1Yk&feature=related

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3896879.ece

The application of 'Human Rights' law is here shown for the insanity it is.. where, due to the fact that Jordan has the 'death penalty' a man who has an incitement to and actual terrorism track record and is described as 'Osama bin Ladin's right hand man in Europe'.. is now granted bail from prison.. because it is 'inhuman' to keep him there indefinitely when there is no prospect of deportation...which in turn is based on the idea that no person can be deported to a country which has the death penalty... or perhaps it is just where the person concerned has been sentenced to death.

Now.. Taxpayers will fund this mans 'lifestyle'?

QUESTION. Should we not then revisit our signatory status on the UN convention on Human Rights and add a proviso that our national security must always be the over-riding consideration?
Yes, why or No.. why not?

Baby. Bathwater.

Same ole' agenda same ole' tactics.

<< Same ole' agenda same ole' tactics. >>

Same ol' belief that muslims are made of Semtex. Yep, let the bloke out on bail, under constant surveillance, separated from his organisation, and just watch him go and blow up a train.

Well at least the US prosecuted that taxi driver. Man that guy was the lowest of the low. Driving people around for a living. It's the responsibility of all Taxi Drivers to vet their passengers and ensiure they're not up to any terrorist activity.

Then there's the people who lend their phones to other people... the list goes on.

The 'same old' here.. is the inherrent problem of allegedly respecting 'human rights' when the rights of others are at stake.

I begin to wonder just how misguided the leftist head/mind/brain(?) is... Sancho.. speaking about 'baby & bathwater'... you just did exactly that, by avoiding the serious problem of a man who is known to be close to Bin Ladin, and claiming that to focus on his new life at taxpayers expence somehow.. means that all Muslims are made of Semtex.

Now.. mate.. honestly, do you wish to have any credibility here?

How do you draw that conclusion? Oh.. don't bother. I know the answer.. the reasoning goes 'If you attack any specific person, you are
a) Hating all of them and
b) regard all of them as exactly like the single individual you drew attention to.

Not only is that lousy reasoning.. I have to say it's outright bigotry.

The facts speak for themselves... the lamentably inadequate post modern/socialists are good on the history of the West and how it trod down the poor masses of wherever, but when it comes to the history of those who 'would if they could'.. aaah.. you know very little, and then.. have pretty much zero idea about how to understand such movements, because you probably were told how to think at
WannabeSocialst school.. rather than actually sussing out information in a systematic way, you sit in Druids house drooling at the feet of some visiting 'revolutionary' from Venezuela or Cuba just drinking it all in with the starry glazed eyes of mindless zombies.

Then, being programmed.. you trot out to the next "Peace" march or "Anti Racism" rally..and act so sincere.....full of passion.. zeal.. but all coming from the programming..not reason.

"Human Rights" are not from God..they are from man.. in the dubious form we have them. True Human Rights.. those granted by the Almighty, do not include the 'right' to avoid just punishment for crimes proven even when it involved the death penalty. Jordans verdict is entirely Biblical for 'The Emperoror'....Romans 13:1-5

Boazycrap: << Now.. mate.. honestly, do you wish to have any credibility here? >>

Comparing Boazy's spittle-flecked expostulations with the other comments thus far, I wouldn't think that it's Sancho who has the credibility problem here.

Polly, the ever-inquiring, open-minded, detached social scientist and seeker after truth, Monday, 25 August 2008 10:00:18 AM:

<<QUESTION. Should we not then revisit our signatory status on the UN convention on Human Rights and add a proviso that our national security must always be the over-riding consideration? Yes, why or No.. why not?>>

The same Polly Monday, 25 August 2008 1:06:49 PM when posters don't follow his line:

<<I begin to wonder just how misguided the leftist head/mind/brain(?) is>>

<<Now.. mate.. honestly, do you wish to have any credibility here?>>

<<How do you draw that conclusion? Oh.. don't bother. I know the answer>>

<<Not only is that lousy reasoning.. I have to say it's outright bigotry.>>

<<The facts speak for themselves... the lamentably inadequate post modern/socialists>>

<<...have pretty much zero idea about how to understand such movements, because you probably were told how to think at WannabeSocialst school>>

<< the starry glazed eyes of mindless zombies>>

<<"Human Rights" are not from God..they are from man.. in the dubious form we have them. True Human Rights.. those granted by the Almighty, do not include the 'right' to avoid just punishment for crimes proven even when it involved the death penalty. Jordans verdict is entirely Biblical for 'The Emperoror'....Romans 13:1-5>>

BOAZ, if you already know all the answers, please spare us the sanctimonious pretension to a sincere search for the truth. Just tell us what part of the Bible to read each day. It would save us all a lot of time.

ok. I'm as guilty as you of wasting time on the obvious but, similar is happening on just about a daily basis here in Bob Hawkes' (not so) clever country.

The West is at war; that's WAR, with certain Arab states. The sensible thing to do would be to shut down the borders to visitors and settlers from known enemy areas and deport any troublemakers from amongst the ranks of those already here. If they cannot be deported than they should be held until hostilies cease.

Common Sense is it not? But commonsense doesnt prevail in a land of political correctness does it?
It brings the words of a song I know to my mind."MY BROTHER WAS AMBITIOUS AND HE WENT AWAY TO SCHOOL; MY FATHER SAID, "HE ONLY LEARNT TO BE A SILLY FOOL." I am referring to the political correctness that seems to be put in the kids heads in our schools.

sharkfin, there are certain problems with your position.

>>The West is at war; that's WAR, with certain Arab states<<

That is not strictly accurate, is it?

Of course, if we were actually at war, then your policy of forced repatriation or internment would have some merit. Mind you, deciding who might be, in your words, a troublemaker might be a touch sensitive, but such decisions are part and parcel of a state of war.

The other aspect that you may not have considered is that when war is declared, our armed forces tend to be deployed in war zones, and are expected to kill or be killed. Now, in your view this might be "common sense", but in order to reach this point we are obliged to follow some minor procedural steps, such as defining who we are fighting against and why, electing a government that is prepared to take its citizenry to war on these terms, and explaining to the families of those in the front line why such actions are necessary for the good of this country.

Can you help us out on any of the above?

Or are you simply mouthing off?

Hi Spikey.. sharp as ever today I see.. better watch it you might eclipse Pericles as the 'anti' me :)

This thread has nothing to do with the Bible.. it has to do with common sense and the stupidity of the current idea of what constitute 'Human Rights'.. I mention God only because apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons..

One might prevent a prisoner from deportation and end up with him assassinating the prime minister....

Another might hang the individual and save a lot of much more valuable lives.

DAILY BIBLE READING.. your reading for today is. Romans 13:1-5 :)

I'll be interested in your feedback on that in relation to the idea of "The State" (and possibly the Church)

This contradiction is a little blatant, even for you Boaz.

>>This thread has nothing to do with the Bible... your reading for today is. Romans 13:1-5<<

Of course this thread is about the Bible, Boaz, it is the only material, apart from YouTube, that seems to contain any meaning for you.

>>I mention God only because apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons<<

Your clear intention - although you seem to be the only person who doesn't realise it - is to mock the production of any man-made version of Human Rights, simply in order to proclaim that those that are God-given are somehow superior.

What you carefully ignore is that - as with any earthly version - God appears to have drafted his Human Rights carelessly, allowing any number of interpretations to co-exist.

The parallel is, of course, that the earth-bound versions are argued over by specialist Human Rights lawyers (spit), while your heavenly versions are debated by priests of various cloths, Rabbis, Imams and so on.

I'm afraid that doesn't put them in any more useful a category than the secular versions.

"I mention God only because apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons.."

Now there's a bit of postmodern relativism for you. It defeats the purpose of the entire argument - that human rights are crap. Following this model of relative validity, whether human rights are crap or not is a matter for the individual. Unless there is such a thing as a universally accepted divine mandate, which there is clearly not given the case in question.

That's all beside the point though isn't it? A troll is a troll.

Chainy.. both you and Pericles do have a valid point on the "Imams Priests etc" and the various versions of Divine Human rights... and the relativism of them.

I still maintain though, the primary purpose of the thread is to point out how seriously stupid it is.. to allow the 'UN' version of Human Rights to in turn allow a man like Qatada to live freely in Britain.

They should just ask him a series of well chosen questions and when he gives his 'Islamic' answers.. lock him up for the duration of his natural life for sedition.

the 'Human/Divine' origin of human rights is a side issue.

If I was offering 'Christian' human rights for world consumption in a legal way.. I'd be offering theocracy... same for Islam.

In fact.. it should be realized that there is no such thing as 'Christian legal human rights' in the sense of it being a codified system of law.. because the whole central core of Christianity is about spiritual reconciliation of fallen man to a Holy Creator.

Romans 13:1-5 is valuable in this connection because it DIFFerentiates the idea of 'State' from Church.

and I'm sure that is welcome to all who fear that Christians are actually secretly hoping for a Theocracy. If we had one.. gooood grief.. just imagine St Stanislaus
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24249086-661,00.html

BREAKING NEWS.. "Bob Brown 'vilifies' Exclusive Brethos" :) -what a meany.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24250004-5005961,00.html

"I still maintain though, the primary purpose of the thread is to point out how seriously stupid it is.. to allow the 'UN' version of Human Rights to in turn allow a man like Qatada to live freely in Britain."

In which case your argument is a political one and not an ideological, theological or philosophical one. Given, for example, the existence of Guantanamo Bay and Australia's failure to ratify the genocide conventions, I'd suggest that the UN version of human rights isn't an immediate threat to anyone.

Presumptive, pontificating professor polycarp. :-)

You should avoid hyperventilating You’ll use up your share of Oxygen too soon. Also it gives rise to unfortunate symptoms, light headedness, delusions, lack of judgement, and paranoia.
In the word of COLonel “you should save words”

Might I humbly suggest in my utter ignorance and desire to help the following phraseology.
“I hate Muslims because…I hate Muslims.” Or “I base my opinions on You Tube and Newspaper articles.” (perhaps not the last one as it would engender unkind sniggers and comments about levels of reasoning)
Much simpler and equally defective reasoning though.

Have pity on all those unfortunate ergamatons who died so you can have your logic free rave.

At some point in time you should (highly recommended) do an objective read of the Bible before you criticise The Qu’ran.

Dare I as a secular thinker remind of the quotes “before you criticise the splinter in your brother’s eye first remove the Mote in your own” and “Love thy neighbour”. I’ve noted the latter difficult to do when you're frothing at the mouth with loathing for them.

My research into and contact with Arabs (or Muslims) has come up with some extraordinary realities . Their beliefs tend to go from the sublime to the Bloody ridiculous. Most statistically(94%) are clustered around the (non lethal) middle ground. Logically then 3% are at the lethal end. And all the more surprising this seems to be the case with Christians too (shock horror do you think they might be humans too).

On the good side I can confirm Sancho’s view that Muslims are not made of Semtex or C4 for that matter either.”

Although I can understand that with your seeming endless supply of Straw men fire would be a problem.
Old son, Your base premise for your question is sheer hypocrisy and irrational bile… have you thought of adding more roughage to your diet?

Seriously though everyone is telling you that you’re misguided perhaps you should ponder on it a bit before disregarding them.
Love that Yum Cha though.

Polly

I'm not anti-you. I'm anti the hypocrisy and shallowness of many of the 'ideas' in your posts. I don't like the way to manipulate OLO and pretend you have an open mind. I find many of your posts narrow-minded, confused and self-contradictory - and sadly I think you often don't notice.

You have knocked the alleged relativism of post-modernists, yet as chainsmoker points out you can post this classic today: <<apart from a divine mandate one persons version of 'Human Rights' is as valid as the next persons.>>

Pericles has already pointed out your contradiction on <<nothing to do with the Bible>> versus <<your reading for today is Romans 13:1>>.

I don't like the way you set up false dichotomies as if both options are equally possible e.g. <<One might prevent a prisoner from deportation and end up with him assassinating the prime minister....>>

And I don't like having the Bible shoved down my throat by you who would lock a man up for life because you don't like his ideas. <<They should just ask him a series of well chosen questions and when he gives his 'Islamic' answers.. lock him up for the duration of his natural life for sedition.>>

Nothing against you BOAZ, but I'd really prefer it if you had a long rest and let others have a turn.

POlycarp

I would of thought by now that you would realize that only the secularist close minded dogmas are acceptable to many of the regulars on OLO. This is clearly demonstrated with the laughable gw crap, the evolution fantasy and the support of child porn as art. When you are entrapped in sin your eyes are closed to the truth. The sad part is that these people really do believe they are intelligent. They can even tell you that killing the unborn is not murder with a straight face. They want to preach their socialist gospel and yet can't hold a family together, push their lack of morality on others to cover their own guilt and shame and then make fun of the only One who can take their shame away. Paul's letter to Timothy describing men as 'being wise in their own eyes' describes it perfectly.

Indeed Runner :) points taken.

SPIKEY one.. you said:

And I don't like having the Bible shoved down my throat by you who would lock a man up for life because you don't like his ideas.

Now.. you also speak about shallowness and hypocrisy... (pinch)

Here is the problem. My Biblical quotes are often in response to OTHERs ..not just u. Sometimes I use them to point out aspects of the Christian faith which are very relevant to the discussion.

Romans 13 is VERY relevant..because it shows that the "State" is not part of 'The Church'..... it also provides some guidelines for State behavior.

You gulag me for simply 'disliking ideas' hmmm now lets examinator this statement.

Hitler had quaint "ideas" about Jews..and we know where those ideas took a few million Jews.

Qatada holds this 'idea'

“The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” (Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985);

Do .....you... by any chance recognize just a tinnnny resemblance between the 2 'ideas' ? :) of COURSE you do if you had a shred of honesty in you (frowny aggresive look on my face).

Contrast this with "For God so LOVED the world....." John 3:16

Mate.. I'd ram that down your throat :) and thump it right home with a large industrial strength broom handle if I thought doing so would make a difference..but.. as the rest of John 3:16 says "that whoever BELIEVES....in him" and I hardly think you choking on a large broom handle would be condusive to 'belief' :)

Examinator.. I'd love to chat with you one day :) too much to tackle here in 350 words.. specially when Spikey needs sooooo much remedial therapy :) (from my humble self of course)

PS.. USC Muslim site have REMOVED that hadith from their online english version!

National Security.... DIVERSITY....

here is the 'end game' of that.. when beliefs and background and history are not seriously taken into account

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=34q9omSAR4w&feature=related

See the 'kindly mexican man'(the one being led off by police).. demonstrating his affection for the white Americans.....

Notice the words the Mexican women are mouthing over and over..
around 2:43

EXAMINATOR.. "the speck and beam" parable is not....about legitimate criticism of hateful ideas or threats to national security mate.

I'm criticizing real world threats.. which under Romans 13 it is the responsibility of the state to..DETER!
So..I'm speaking very very legitimately and Biblically.

Also..the percentage of Muslims at the 'ratbag' literalist Jihadist end.. is more like 20% with only 4% who are willing to SELF EXLODE.. but as Harris Rafiq a UK government advisor points out.. the time for the other 15% to go from 'empathising' to ACTION can be as little as 1.5 weeks with the appropriate 'mind food' provided by the 4% .. who show them images of dismembered Arab children etc etc etc.

Now.. DETAILS.. details.. details.. as I'm always telling my son! :)

The ratbag Christians ? 3% ? huh? silly boy.. in America alone that would amoung to many millions.. and do you see evidence of this?
Also..the 'ratbag' element can be brought INTO line by appropriate Biblical counselling.. which encourages them to PEACEFUL participation on society.. UNlike Islam which specifically says "FIGHT them"... (9.29)

*shake shake shake*.. aah.. do you see it now ? :)

You're all for nationalism as opposed to the universalisms of the UN, but somehow the American Christian population comes into it? If you're going to cite the beliefs and values of other countries, even if you limit that to Western nations, you've drifted away from nationalism and into some version of at least partial globalism (selective globalism?), which is where the UN comes in.

If you're worried about Australia you have to think about Australian circumstances. Less than a quarter of Australians are actually practicing Christians - check the Australian Election Survey. Check the Lowy Institute's national surveys and you'll find Australians have lost interest in the Muslim debbil and are more worried about America than Muslim Indonesia, which is right next door. To the extent that we live in a democracy, these things count for something.

hello every one, im john e. carey and john mccain told me privatly america will attack syria and iran, that iraq will end nuclear with gaza destroyed, usa will fire out of iraq and destroy gaza, and israel fires back and destroys iraq, this will allow usa to have iraq's oil for free, as u.s. navy commander, we were told to not talk but you are my children, friends, shoot bush, be peace and freedom party, tell honglien do leave or stay, I like young males any way, be cautious, <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/amer.html">judgment to the MYSTERY, BABYLON</a></font></li>
</head> <BR><BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/amer2.html">visions of lots of things</a></font></li>
</head> <BR><BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://lasttimes.bravehost.com/heaven.html">visions of new jerusalem, heavenly sights, thats hollie in new jerusalem, like uh glass city</a></font></li>
</head> <BR><BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/bibleprophecy.html">prophecy and visions</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/bibleprophecy2.html">prophetic prophecy times</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/upciisfallenlots.html">prophetic prophecy times</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/44.html">america's demise in visions and dreams</a></font></li>
</head> <BR><BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/44b.html">visions of angels and Jesus and ministering spirits, etc</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR> <li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/upciisfallen.html">prophetic prophecy revelations</a></font></li>
</head> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/anti.html">visions from God of the beast</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/anti1.html">visions from God</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.ministryofdreams.0catch.com/amer9.html">visions from God about iraq war</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/e.html">visions from God</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/end.html">visions from God</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/end2.html">visions from God</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/indexmain2.html">visions from God</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/one.html">I still love visions</a></font></li>
</head> <BR> <BR><li><font face="Verdana" size="3"><a href="http://www.prophecy.exactpages.com/upciisfallen.html">I like dreams</a></font></li>
</head> <BR>

Polycarp my worried warrier,
Statistically 96% of people’s opinions are distributed within the 2 standard deviations either side of the mean. If we assume that the mean is a balanced approach to non Muslims that leaves 2% at either extreme end.
Actual numbers of Muslims is a lot of people BUT with each qualification you are reducing that number.
Qualifications like:
• Are they really organized enough?
• Do they have the opportunity?
• Do they have the wherefor all to be in a position to really do anything to warrant the Christo-xenophobic paranoia?
• Do they have sufficient psychosis to actually blow themselves up?
• Are they down trodden without hope enough?
• Are they stupid enough to believe they will get away with it without bringing shame etc to their families?
Keep in mind most local young hot head Muslims don’t have the same motivation here as say in those Ramalla. (Multi virgins don’t have the same emotional currency here).

Acts of violence? Go stand in Smith St Collingwood on Saturday Night after Collingwood has lost a game and shout “Collingwood are a bunch of Fairies.”
As a gang of local thugs beat you to a pulp ask them how many Muslims are there amongst them.
My point is you’re more at statistical risk attacked by non Muslim nutters than being blown up by an Islamic one. Car Accidents, Smoking kill or maime more. Let’s ban cars and tobacco. Ignore booze ‘cos I like that.

I would suggest that base on reasonable thinking you are looking at as a real threat here is something like 2% of the Muslim’s in Australia which is less than 2% of population divided by the number in your state, then 2% of them then 2% of those who fit the above criteria. Ultimately get a POTENTIAL 20 people approx Australia wide. And 6 live down the road from me, I’ve got my eye on them. I’m sure you, runner and the like can keep an eye on the rest ;-)

Hi Examinator....I'm a bit wobbly because of that John E Carey post which was reallllly surreal....

But back to you.

The stats are not as benign as you make out.

Regarding the Muslim community, I refer you to the work of Harris Rafique who is a Muslim UK government advisor..

"Harris Rafique of the newly formed Sufi Muslim Council added: "We are seeing a huge politicisation of faith rather than (economic) circumstances. An ideology is taking hold of our youngsters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/12/politics.terrorism

He estimates upto 20% of them are at the extreme end.. though only a smaller percentage are willing to act on it. 1.5 weeks between 'emphathizing' and 'acting' is how little it can take.

The problematic aspect of all this is that they continually identify our 'foreign policy' as the trouble spot. "Israel" and "Iraq+Afghanistan"
But let's not forget.. we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil.
So.. if we were to cave in and remove troops from Afghanistan.. the outcome would be worse for us.. as they would then train up so many MORE suicidal bombers to send our way...don't you agree?

Polly Polly

<< up to 20% of them are at the extreme end.. though only a smaller percentage are willing to act on it. 1.5 weeks between 'emphathizing' and 'acting' is how little it can take.>>

Now here was I innocently believing I had 1.6 weeks to take cover from all those infidels. Now I am really quaking. One point five...sheesh! Any room in your bunker mate?

Boazycrap: << But let's not forget.. we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil. >>

Really? I thought we were in Afghanistan because of our sycophantic relationship with the USA. What act of terrorism "on our own soil" was it exactly that caused the Australian government to send troops to Afghanistan?

Ye gods!

Australia was invaded by the Afghanistan Army?

What next?

PolycarpBoazy has no agenda?

Boazy, your pants seem to be on fire.

Porkycarp, where are you?

You should know the pattern by now, CJ.

BD backs himself into corner
Disappears
And starts another thread.