Look, Boaz, it doesn't matter how much you bluster, facts are facts.

You said 700. There were 100. You exaggerated, as you always do.

And you cannot pretend that 100 people in a demonstration actually constitutes a threat to anything, especially when they were so well managed by the police.

Would you prefer that all demonstrations are banned? Where would you draw the line - any political group? any religious group? a fascist rally? an anti-fascist rally?

http://www.uaf.org.uk/

Or perhaps all religious gatherings? Plenty of opportunities for "hate speech" there, I would think.

But... but... but...

Were you not, only recently, a passionate advocate of free speech?

I seem to recall that you were a supporter of your friends who called Muslims "demons", claimed that the Koran promoted violence and killing, that Muslims derived money from drugs and intended to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation.

http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=12515

It seems to me that free speech won that one - how come you are suddenly extremely upset when it is supported overseas?

Could it be that your inconsistency is the result of your resolute stance against anything Islamic?

Surely not.

>>I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell"<<

Can't speak for CJ of course, but it wouldn't disturb me in the slightest.

Hey, go the whole hog. Take 100 people.

Back to reality.

>>some very loud people shout that he should go to hell....and this is a 'minor disturbance'?<<

Yes.

>>I'm looking at the tattered ruins of your credibility laying on the floor.<<

And I'm looking at the parting shot of someone who knows he has no real argument.

Quite amusing to see Porkycarp accusing Pericles of being irrational and having little credibility.

I recall it wasn't very long ago that Boazy claimed that he wouldn't rest until the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is repealed. His apparent change of heart seems a tad hypocritical, to say the least.

<< I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell" >>

Like Pericles, I'd say go for it if you're game. But we all know you're not.

I see you've sidestepped the questions about your claimed terrorist act on Australian soil that was supposedly perpetrated by "suicidal bombers" trained in Afghanistan. So I guess we conclude that you just made that one up, in much the same way that 100 demonstrators become 700 in your peculiar notion of truth.

But we knew that too, didn't we?

Dear Pericles.. the reason I've not addressed the issue of the numbers, is that you, along with certain un-named persons (like CJ :) enjoy using any such correction as evidence of "total" lack of credibility.

You also reject completely the idea that a person might have been confusing the numbers at 2 demonstrations.. in the 'fog of debate'.

The reasons I have little respect for such 'witch hunts' is because that is what they are.. they are not interested in the essential issue, which is..that a 'large' group of people held up signs which were absolutely illegal. "incitement to violence" and in the UK, one might even argue blasphemy.. (I said argue) to condemn the Pontif with verbage like "curse the pope" in a country which defines it's existence by reference to a king who specifically departed from the Catholic Church..established his own, and fought numerous battles against Catholics..and added to this, by your own testimony the 'troubles' of Norther Ireland is RELIGIOUS in nature.. and considering that if you held up such signs in the 'bogside' of Ulster your life expectancy would probably be milliseconds if that.....

It defies all measure of rationality to say that "it was well managed and no harm was done" kind of thing...that dear Pericles is utter and absolute rubbish and you jolly well know better. Shame on you for asserting 'credibility' issues on the back of irrationality.

IF... you had pointed to the numerical issue 'innocently' and without malice aforethought.. I might have addressed it. But you didn't... you are guilty of witch hunting.

"ISLAM WILL CONQUER ROME" is an outright call for or at least celebration of the violent attack on Catholics and is definiltely incitement to hatred.

Now for some further information about that demonstration.

First....'The Law'.

Schedule 1, section 1 (3) of the act prohibits any statement which:

"(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."

<<The Metropolitan Police are only now deciding to investigate the protest, following complaints from the public.

"Detectives from the MPS are reviewing material gathered at yesterday's demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral and subsequent complaints made to police," a spokesperson said.

Tarique Ghaffur, himself a Muslim, is in charge of Public Order
Policing.

He said: "We have a long history of facilitating lawful demonstration and are keen to continue dialogue with any group wishing to protest.

However, what we will not allow is for people to attend demonstrations and break the law.

Currently officers are looking at what took place yesterday, and also other publicly made statements, with a view to ascertain if any criminal offences have been committed. We will always proportionately police all protest but equally will take decisive action where crime is committed.">>

COMMENT
Welllll well well.. we have Tariq Ghaffur again cropping up...
where clear breaches of the law have taken place.. should we be surprised that the "Muslim" man in charge of 'public order' sees nothing wrong with calling for the death of the pope?

Makes me want to 'Guffaw'

Polynocchio: << 'fog of debate' >>

While that's a good description of your general approach, it doesn't get you off the hook. This isn't the first time you've been caught out using highly inflated figures to bolster a hateful rant, rather it was standard operating procedure for you when you were BOAZ_David, which you've continued since adopting your new moniker.

Now what about your claim of a terrorist attack on Australian soil by Afghan-trained "suicidal bombers"?

What I don't understand is why, if it was a genuine mistake, you don't simply acknowledge it, apologise and move on to your next rant. By telling outright lies and repeatedly exaggerating, you make it very easy to negate your credibility.

"Witch hunt" There's a very evocative term, Boaz.

>>The reasons I have little respect for such 'witch hunts' is because that is what they are.. they are not interested in the essential issue, which is..that a 'large' group of people held up signs which were absolutely illegal. "incitement to violence"<<

I was about to say "ah, but you are mistaken."

Then I decided to change it to "Boaz, you lie through your back teeth."

You should be aware by now that there is no such thing as "the fog of debate" where you are concerned. And while you may like to categorize this as some form of vindictiveness, it is in fact simply a reaction to your perpetual whack-a-mozzie antics.

Think about it.

A hundred people in central London is not many at all. It can barely be called a crowd.

There are queues at bus stops with more people than that.

Multiplying by a factor of seven in order to justify a position, is what gets you into trouble.

Adding 50%, or even doubling the number, you could possibly get away with. Unless of course you are asked to estimate your wife's weight, in which case you would certainly learn about the dangers of overestimation, quick sharp.

>>if you held up such signs in the 'bogside' of Ulster your life expectancy would probably be milliseconds<<

Possibly. Less likely these days though. But if you held up a placard that insulted Muhammad in downtown Riyadh, it probably would.

However - and this is important, so listen very carefully... if you went to a Rangers/Celtic match, and listened closely to the gentle banter of the crowd, you would hear much worse slogans than "Pope, go to hell".

What the...? I hear you cry. And this match takes place at least four times a year? And there isn't a line of paddy-wagons outside Celtic Park or Ibrox carting away the hate-speechers? For shame.

It's called "keeping things in proportion", Boaz.

Which I suspect is a concept totally alien to you.

You persistently exaggerate, simply in order to foment hatred. You always have.