Frederick Toben, Australia's notorious Holocaust denier is not exactly my favourite person. But should he be censored?

See: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/16/1004428/revisionist-toben-found-guilty

Quote:

Toben's "conduct shows he does not accept that …freedom of speech … does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, color or national or ethnic origin,” Justice Lander told the court.

So there is a right not to be offended or insulted? This does not bode well for free speech.

Then we have the continuing attempts by Muslim countries to outlaw what they call "defamation of religion." In other words Muslim countries want Western countries to re-establish blasphemy laws.

See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm

Victoria already has attempted to impose blasphemy laws in the form of the notorious Racial and Religious Tolerance (sic) Act.

See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2917

England is perhaps the Western country that has gone furthest in imposing thought control. This from the BBC:

"A 14-year-old girl has been arrested for allegedly making racist remarks at a school….

"Codie Stott said she asked to be moved from a science group where she was with five Asian pupils - only one of whom spoke English.

"The 14-year-old was questioned in a juvenile unit before being released without charge.

"Harrop Fold High School, in Worsley, is investigating before deciding on what action to take.

"Her mother said her Codie's jewellery and shoelaces were removed, her fingerprints and DNA samples were taken and she was put in a cell."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6047514.stm

Here's what the school had to say:

"…it wanted to ensure it had a caring and tolerant attitude to pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and it did not stand for racism in any form."

Bizarre does not begin to describe this.

Free speech seems to be taking a battering. The thought police are everywhere in the ascendant.

Quote from steve.

"Then we have the continuing attempts by Muslim countries to outlaw what they call "defamation of religion." In other words Muslim countries want Western countries to re-establish blasphemy laws."

For the love of god! We are going back to the dark ages! and to back this up, the latest report out of the US is that more people believe in physic abilities and mind reading than they do in god or evolution.

"Free speech under attack." Not in my books. I will exercise some more freedoms of speech!

Religion must be controlled or this madness will never stop.

EVO

New Hate-Crimes Bill..Unconstitutional/..Threat to Religious Freedom?
HR 1913,the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009,
Jim Kouri;'the bill passed in the House/representatives...249/175

such a law may have unintended consequences that includes misuse by overzealous and politically motivated prosecutors.

FBI revealed the approximately..17,000/homicides occurred in the U.S.,only 9 of the murders were/motivated by bias...the Bureau’s annual Uniform Crime Report showed/hate crimes has actually declined over the last 10 years.


provisions contained in HR;1913 include:Federalization of crimes that already are being effectively prosecuted by State and local governments.

· The forcing of law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence of the offender’s thoughts and words,regardless of the criminality of his actions.Blurring the line between violent belief,which is constitutionally protected,and violent action,which is not.

“This new law opens the door to suspects being questioned about their thoughts rather than their actions.Are we going to start interrogating people about what they are or were thinking?”asks a New York City detective who opposes the law.

“We already have a hate crime law in our state Penal Code.What are the feds doing getting involved in state crimes?”said the veteran cop on condition of anonymity.

I believe that every violent crime is appalling.Furthermore,I believe that all people should be equally protected by law from violence,no matter who they are,”

“In addition to posing a litany of constitutional problems,today’s legislation alarmingly overturns the cornerstone of equality in our justice system by placing a higher value on one life over another...I believe that all victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law,”

federal hate law would preempt the Tenth Amendment which delegates most law enforcement to the states.

Supporters believe that the federal government will be able to utilize the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in order to force local officials to protect gays,minorities and others as”protected groups.”

“Religious leaders and others who express their constitutionally protected beliefs should not be silenced out of fear of prosecution,”

The US Senate has a similar version of the bill and will no doubt vote..soon..on their own hate crimes legislation

It is true that we have a big problem with religious extremists and it will be huge mistake if we abandon our basic rights, if we abandon our freedom of speak in the name of any religious group, IN THE NAME OF ANY GOD.
For me our liberties is out from any kind of discusions.
We must block any atemp to drive us to the dark ages.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I am starting to think religion is a severe mental illness. Where ever you look, death and destruction follows it, and the more nonreligious people look at the facts, the clearer it becomes. My pagan back-ground is bad enough to live with, but its no problem when people just leave the evolutionary generated security blanket in the private minds where god evolved from, I don't have problem with them.

The adult children of the godly world is just what they are, and if the extremists want to kill me in the name of their god, well I have the right to tell them to go and take a right royal flying YOU KNOW WHAT.
I was born free in this world, on this world and i,ll be damned if you (religious people) or anyone else to tell me what i can (within the law of course) say, when there's a theory on the table that says, its all in your head!

Prove to me other-wise? or belt up.

Sorry members, but this really gets up my goat.
You god people come to my door, and make me feel bad about being an atheist and look down upon me like I am some sort of "lower form of life", well I feel your discriminating against my beliefs.

My little rant for the week.
Live and let live has always been my motto.

EVO

Kevin Rudd has brought in new powers to detain people suspected of having swine flue.The New Govt have given authorities more powers to seach anyone home of records if they are suspected of being part of a gang.

It is more than freedom of speech under a attack,our personal liberties are under attack.In the US it is much worse but we are catching up.

Another stimulating piece Steven.

Some later writers have associated such expression-control with religion and, perhaps in middle eastern societies that is the case .But, more often than not, in modern Western society the impetus for it seems to arise from those who have little or no religious affiliation; people who see themselves as acolytes of tolerance & respect.

As well illustrated in the UK examples you have cited, such people may be acting in the name of tolerance/respect but the outcome is intolerance for anything but the forms endorsed in their new liturgy. Some of our secularists would make triple-A fundamentalists, they have all the right attributes, all they would need is a change of labels.

And we have examples very near to home, take a look at some of the recent threads on OLO. A number of people get very offside if one expresses an non-PC opinion and, employ anything they can get away with in an attempt to silence that opinion – and, it is even worse on other more “progressive” venues.

And it is very selective :for example, it is NOT OK to offend someone because of the colour of their skin, but it IS OK to offend them because of the colour of their hair (e.g. ‘dumb blondes’ ) or, if they are obese – same offence – but different penalty!

Perhaps it is some innate human quality ?

Hang on a sec, haters. The learned Judge correctly asserts that in Australian law freedom of speech "does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, color or national or ethnic origin".

I can only wonder why it is that some people here want to defend the publication of material that offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates other people.

Do you want to be free to intimidate and humiliate others in print, Steven?

HORUS,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree. It is not merely religious fundamentalists who want to restrict free speech. I have heard climate scientists arguing that the media should not publish stories that throw doubt on global warming. There are totalitarians everywhere.

EVO, ASYMEONAKIS

I have no problem with people's religious beliefs. For all I care someone can believe in the tooth fairy. It starts going wrong when religious people demand that their beliefs systems be accorded some special "respect" or when they try to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

CJ MORGAN

Interesting intro to your post. Why are we "haters?"

I am not debating the law in Australia. Maybe the judge got the law right; maybe not. However if that is the law, if people have a right not to be offended, then we have no free speech.

Here is a concrete example of how a right not to be offended can effectively abolish free speech.

Most Australian Jews are deeply offended by attacks on Israel. Most orthodox Jews today regard Zionism as an integral part of Judaism. (It was not always so).

Must we refrain from robust debate on Israel's actions, on the very concept of a Jewish State, because to do so will offend thousands of Australians?

Are we to be prohibited from attacking Zionism under "defamation of religion" laws?

I mention Jews because I am most familiar with Jewish sensibilities. However I have known Catholics to feel deeply insulted by attacks on the Pope. Are we to be restricted from discussing the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception because millions of Catholics will regard this as an attack on their religion?

It is almost impossible to say anything important without offending at least some people.

How do you imagine most religious people feel about this Guardian piece by AC Grayling?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/20/wasilla-palin-church-fire-secularism

Is Grayling to be censored because his piece offends people? Because they feel bullied by him?

These are not rhetorical question CJ MORGAN. I hope you will deal with the issues I raised

Dear Steven,

This topic has been discussed previously.

Freedom of speech is not without certain
set parameters. It does not include death
threats or trying to incite a riot, or harming
anyone. There are still certain common sense
guidelines that most civilized countries adhere to.
Racial vilification and preaching hatred (harming
someone) would not be allowed in most civilized
societies.

Stevenlmeyer. You may of misunderstood my posts. I am in full support of yours. Religions little monopoly should be watched and regulated on so many levels, and on another point, no more free rides! They pay taxes like anyone else.

CJ. You confuse me sometimes. You seem to have multi sides to your personality when it suits you. Can you explain to me other wise, just in case I have misread you.

EVO

EVO,

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

FOXY,

I don’t see how we could have discussed this before. So far as I am aware, prior to Judge Lander's ruling in the Toben case, no Australian judge declared there was a right not to be offended or insulted. This ruling, if upheld, dramatically extends limitations on free speech. It in effect destroys free speech.

Threats of violence and incitement to violence are well known exclusions to the general right of free speech. But denying the Holocaust is neither.

I am not defending Toben. The Holocaust is about as well documented as any historical event can be. Toben seems to be an extremely unpleasant follow whose Holocaust denial probably stems from a pathological hatred for Jews. But I see no allegation that he threatened anyone or incited violence.

In my previous post I examined some of the consequences of a right not to be offended or insulted. Would you like to deal with them?

Are Examinator's tedious outbursts about "uber-Zionist plots" to be prohibited on the grounds that someone may be offended?

What about advertisements for the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras? They certainly offend a whole lot of people? Are they to be proscribed?

I respect the freedom of expression for any person, religious or non religious, christian, muslim or atheist, etc.
Even I support actively these rights for any person, religious or non religious, christian, muslim or atheist etc.
BUT I can not acept to limit my basic rights because any extremist thinks that his religious or god is more important from my basic human rights.
We do not live in a theocratic state and we will NOT ALLOW any one to violate our basic rights, direct or indirect.
I am afraid that some people are ready to make some steps backword, that some people are ready to abandon their rights.
NO! WE WILL NOT MOVE BACKWORD, OTHERS MUST MOVE FORWORD, THEIR IDEAS AND BEHAVE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE 21st CENTURY, WITH THE CURRENT CIVILIZATION.
Realy I am not ready for the dark ages!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

C J Morga.Who is to decide what is offensive? The NSW Govt tried to ban all protests against the Pope when he visited recently.What right did they have to stop people wearing T-shirts protesting against his policies?

Our freedoms are under attack and the PC brigade are aiding and abetting this.

CJ Morgan

Anybody who claims to be "offend(ed), insult(ed) or humiliate(d) or intimidate(d) because of their race, color or national or ethnic origin" (sexual orientation will be next), can use these laws to "humiliate or intimidate" someone who expresses an opinion that can be remotely determined to come under the purview of these laws.
The accuser gets a free ride at public expense while the accused will likely need to spend thousands of dollars and many hours defending themselves.

Look at the sad history of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions which have devolved into kangaroo courts which are manipulated by people of totalitarian bent to shut down debate.
http://www.ezralevant.com/
(A bit like people on this forum who use the trolling accusation to silence dissent.)
The accused generally settle out of court simply because its cheaper than being wrung through the mill.

Look at the Dutch example where competing political parties are using these laws to criminalise and silence rivals (re: Geert Wilders).

Unfortunately, CJ Morgan, you are a typical example of the hypocrisy of such people who feel free to "offend, insult or intimidate or humiliate" others by calling them "haters" and then having the gall to say "Do you want to be free to intimidate and humiliate others in print?"

These laws are only put in place to further enslave us by taking more of our God-given rights away. No government cares about offending a particular race, religion, etc.

Sadly we cannot ignore these stupid laws once they are in place otherwise we all fall victim to them. But the one thing we can all do is openly oppose these laws and better educate our children and adults so that we don't even need to think about creating legislation like this.

A massive reverse social engineering project is needed as soon as possible.

Here is just a little thought. Since we are now living in the 21st century and not the 19th, a new challenge for world order is now on display. Since multiculturalism is inevitable, the hiding behind the discrimination idol is only going to delay our gathering as a human species.

In other words, if we don't sort this all out in the online boxing ring, we will never get these prejudice, racist, religious and multi-cultural stones, which hangs over our heads from a time well past.

This is why freedom of speech gives us all the opportunity to get what ever is in our systems out in the open and dealt with and processed with all we can muster whilst still in our evolutionary infancy. The Internet is a great place to vent our frustrations and let the people put in line those who step over it, and not the courts.

Modes. Weekly on-line suspensions for only the very serious offences.

But many debate with wit and intelligence and that's what is needed as well the hunt for the truth.

KMB is well in order.

EVO

Steven
This topic has been hashed to death.
Please stop using tired old trojan horses to defend Israel and its PR machine.You have no desire to discuss the topic without loaded parameters.
This is Australia. At least declare your secondary motive. .
Clearly you have the proverbial mote in your eye.
The law is a double edged sword.
I agree with CJ you just want to curb any criticism of all things Jewish (Israeli).
You are starting to sound like Polycarp.

FYI I am neither Pro or con either side. I just don't subscribe the Israeli claims of being the sole victim.

Dear Steven,

My apologies, I mis-read your opening post.

I suppose the problem that I have is for the need
to allow public insults and denigration, of
any religion, race, culture or people. If you see
errors in a statement that someone is making,
correct them, but why get personal? Why vilify people?

I would have thought there were vilification laws in
place that did not allow this sort of behaviour.
People actually walked out on the President of Iran
when he made his speech vilifying Israel.

I think that as a "free," society we need to seriously
think about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Isn't
there enough hatred in the world

This HAS been done before, though recently Tobin has been found guilty recently of his usual tripe.

Personally? I think he can prattle on as he wishes. The man is a total banker. BUT;- what IS dangerous about this jackass is how those less restrained than he, will interpret his fallacious bulldust.

THAT is the real problem.
_____________________

This business of 'PC-brigade/Freedom of Speech/...and now we can add troll;-always tickles me.

It is used incessantly by many of you to have a shot at those who disagree with your opinions! For crying out loud!!, put another record on.

I think in the forum there are two major groups, lefts-rights, which give top priority to their groups than to serve the truth or express their personal ideas.
I understand very well why these persons have so different opinion from time to time.
I understand the needs from these groups, but I desagree with any person who put lines between "friends" and "opponents".
Bush's policy "if you are not with us you are with our enemies" is a good tool in their hands and of cause damage their goals!
Personaly I am totaly independant, I write what I think is right and I ignore TOTALY what any other person think about me.
I do not belong to any group and I do not see any person as a friend or as an opponent.
I DO NOT LIKE TO BELONG TO ANY GROUP. I serve my poor ideas, my principles my values and I am TOTALY FREE, TO WRITE WHAT I THINK IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
It is sad that people with so good ideas have to support, to promote cheap things in the name of group's benefits.
Sure I am secularist and sure I do not abandon my basic rights in the name of any god.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

KMB a very succinct analogy of CJ Morgan.He needs to do some soul searching.

Attributed to Voltaire,"I may not agree with what you say,but will defend to the death your right to say it." 1694

If the free market of knowledge is allowed to operate,then the truth like cream,will always rise to the surface.

Soul searching? Get real.

I couldn't give a stuff about offending and/or insulting - my problem is with racist twats like Toben who think they can publish material that humiliates and/or intimidates. They can't in Australia, and I'm comfortable with that.

KMB - your attempt to play the victim is truly pathetic.

Hearken to the voice of tolerance above.

KMB, nice one! (re your latest post)

ARJAY,

Voltaire's famous statement is as relevant in the 21st century as it was in 1694.

FOXY,

People hate. That is a fact of life. Haters are not deterred by laws restricting free speech. They will continue to spread their vitriol in private and gatherings and in the guise of religious teaching. Especially the latter!

All restrictions on free speech will achieve is deter the rest of us from expressing our opinions freely and openly. Once that happens, once we are cowed into silence, dictatorship follows.

On the whole I am encouraged by the robust defence of free speech on this thread. The usual pro-censorship group have followed their usual tactics. CJ MORGAN, who boasts of his dedication to reason on other threads, contents himself with two emotional outbursts. In the first he labels us "haters." In the second he announces that he is "comfortable" with the decision to restrict Toben.

Guess what CJ MORGAN, laws about speech should not be dictated by what makes you, or me, or the Pope, comfortable.

Typically CJ MORGAN refuses to engage with the issues.

KMB sums his posts up succinctly and accurately.

EXAMINATOR, another member of the pro-censorship group, projects his obsession with Zionist propaganda onto this thread as he does on many others. He seems to see a Zionist under every bed.

EXAMINATOR too refuses to engage with the issues. He writes:

"I agree with CJ you just want to curb any criticism of all things Jewish (Israeli)."

In fairness to CJ MORGAN I don’t think he accused me of trying to curb "criticism of all things Jewish."

Perhaps EXAMINATOR will show where I have written anything that could be construed as a desire to shut down criticism of anything Jewish or Israeli.

But, to repeat, I am encouraged by the robust defence of free speech I see on this thread. It reflects what I find in face-to-face conversation.

Let's face it people, nothing in this world is FREE, and freedom of speech has a price too, that of being offended by others.
I get offended by our Political Masters and their pronouncements at times, should I be able to sue/silence them? Hardly. They've declared themselves immune after all.
I may think Toben and his ilk are fools, but I accord them the same right I claim for myself, freedom to say what they want. If we start adding riders to that freedom, other than covering criminal or violent incitement, then we are no longer free, are we?
The day we can silence someone for "offending" others sensibilities we are doomed, and on our way to Theocracy, a fate worse than death!

Long live the fringe-dwellers, the nutters, the crazies, they are a sign of the health of our society!

Well said MAXIMILLION

How many people have sighted the legislation proclaiming that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to insult? Does such legislation really exist?

I've been following this thread but not contributing to it - as I guess many do.

The reason I often don't contribute is because I figure that, once one has seen or put forward one's arguments on similar threads its already out there. If people aren't convinced the first two or three or dozen times then once more is not going to do the trick.

For instance: the so-called Voltaire quote.(The original poster on this thread correctly said it was "attributed" to him). Each time its dragged out I used to point out (and so, I think, have others) that Voltaire did not, at any time, say this. It was a phrase used by one of his biographers over a hundred years after his death. Yet the same people who have been on posts where this is pointed out, rather than going and checking for themselves if they don't believe this, continue rather to ignore it.

So, when people say this thing about Freedom of Speech has been done to death, or re-hashed, they don't mean particularly this particular aspect of it (Hoben), but the entire premise.

It seems to me that people are going to continue to argue this topic simply because they are arguing from two different viewpoints.

One interprets Freedom of Speech as licence to - as someone said - vent their frustrations. This they regard as healthy, progressive and cathartic.

The other regards its as freedom to express their political, social, religious opinions. This, they feel, has nothing to do with directing comment at another's private attributes - or percieved lack of them.

The first group does not differentiate between personal abuse and rejection of a personal viewpoint.

The second group sees them as two seperate issues.

Until both groups can see why the statements "I hate you" and "I hate your views" are interpreted differently by each group I think the entire issue of Freedom of Speech is destined to continue being rehashed ad infinitum.

Thank you Romany. Makes me really happy when I can read a post and understand it plus I think I learnt something.

Now I am going to embaress myself.

As a young teenager I thought Free Speech meant a person had a right to make a speech.

And could only retain this right if it was a long speech. And also everyone in attendance had to understand and agreed with their point of view at the end of it.

The more clapping the more right they had to have more free speech.

It seemed perfectly logical and I think I even now return to this concept at times.

ROMANY,

Let’s apply your principles to the Toben case. So far as I am aware Mr. Toben's sole transgression is denying the Holocaust. That is to say, he expresses the view that the Holocaust never happened.

Now this is plain batty. The historicity of the Holocaust is not in doubt. I can well understand that Holocaust survivors and people who lost family because of the Holocaust would find this particular display of lunacy deeply offensive. Personally I find Toben's views repugnant.

It seems reasonable to infer that Toben's views are formed by a pathological hatred for Jews.

However, so far as I am aware Toben did not actually express any hatred for Jews or anyone else. He simply denied the Holocaust.

Using your principles Toben should be free to do this.

I agree with you.

That is why I find Judge Lander's judgement so disturbing. We cannot allow free speech to be limited by the fact that someone may be offended by what the speaker says.

LEIGH,

To the best of my knowledge there is no statute in Australia that establishes a right not to be insulted.

Personal insults, ad hominem attacks, are another matter. I am not sure what the legal situation is there. Continued personal attacks would constitute harassment and perhaps even actionable libel. Prohibitions against harassment and libel are well-known and generally accepted limitations on free speech.

To the best of my knowledge Toben did not harass or libel anyone.

My apologies there should have been a comma between CJ & you. Sorry CJ

Steven,

Why is this case more important than a hundred others where the same principle is used? Why this one?
Given a noted propensity to float topics that have a not to subtle relationship to all thing Israeli spin. Add to that conversation(s) where you give a clear indication of your pro Israeli bias. I refer you to a conversation whereby YOU told me that unless I accepted what was logically dubious Israeli spin doctrine we had nothing to talk about. (isn't that shutting down a conversation?)

If my linking of the facts are wrong then I guess I will apologise but as yet I'm unconvinced. Your intelligence is undoubted but so is your bias.

As for being Pro censorship give me a break! I merely pointed out that the law is double edged. Try looking at the anti vilification laws... I have no problem with common sense or broader perspective being applied.

The Judge clearly saw that the Denier was using the law to cover what is clearly an indirect vilification. i.e. if it doesn't exist then the Jews are liars etc.
Likewise I would sanction some of the more extreme anti Islamic false hood. Deliberate over reading etc. designed to alienate by and large a law abiding a societal group.

We all give up “rights(?)” to facilitate relative community harmony. The lesser end of society always abhors someone who is different. Because they have no answer to the facts they indulge is victim hood to justify or ad hominem.

Like Romany says reject your stance not you.

Jewely,
Anything you say may be taken down and used as evidence against you.

Dear Steven,

I've just come across a website that explains
it much better then I ever could:

http://blog.oup.com/2009/03/free_speech/

"Liberty Not Licence."

It may clear things up for you - regarding my
point of view.

The right to exercise any right should be controlled
to an extent whereby it is not detrimental to society.
Freedom should not be confused with licence, as the
article points out.

Freedom of speech does not mean
freedom to slander, freedom to engage in false and
highly misleading advertising, and so on. Frederick
Toben is not just a person with an individual opinion.
He advertises his thoughts via books, lectures, the
internet, and he also teaches other people
at the Institute in South Australia. In this way he
is actively slandering a group of people, he is giving out
highly misleading information that may provoke violence,
or the destruction of property, he is vilifying - which
The Australian Jewish News has objected to.

I agree with another poster (on another thread) who said
that, "If the speech is a lie - it should not masquerade
as a right to free speech."

Steve, before making much comment on Toben you really need to check out his focus, what he wants to achieve. And check out those he appeals to.

His purpose is most certainly CALCULATED, to intimidate and give courage to those who hate and fear the Jewish people. Worldwide. He is not merely giving 'another opinion'.

Romany, CJ and Foxy posted well on this.

Wouldn't it be of greater value to explore the difference, as expounded by Romany?

KBM- don't waffle about the Netherlands or Wilders. Wilders hasn't been stopped from giving controversial viewpoints. He's a member of parliament (House of Representatives) for goodness sakes. He's diametrically opposed to the likes of Toben by the way. Toben: admirer of Ahamadinejad; Wilders: Iran is an evil state.

Controversial viewpoints generally encourage good debate and argument, both sides have to show cause why theirs is the more rational/logical one. The argument that is, not the person.

@examinator
"We all give up “rights(?)” to facilitate relative community harmony"
If you want to facilitate comunity harmony WE MUST BLOCK THE DISCRIMINATION!
Create a law which could help the victims of any discrimination to find their rights. Improve our rights, do not limit them!
Obama's first sign was on the law against discrimination in work places.
About 80? republican MPs supported this law!
According to this law a women, victim of dicrimination in her work place can claim her rights, 6 months from the LAST payment. In Australia if you are victim of discrimination you MUST CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DAY THE DISCRIMINATION HAPPENED.
We have federal and state ALP governments, I do not ask them to act as labor government but at least to do what Democrats and 80 republican MPs did in USA. CHANGE THE UNDISCRIMINATION LAW!
You can not tell me that you are interested for the community harmony when in every day life you do nothing to stop the victimization of innocent people, to stop the discrimination, to change the law about discriminition!
About the trojan horse, you did two mistakes.
First we, you and me, do not belong to the same political group I am with victime's side, FOR ME THE SOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATION PLROBLEMS IS TOP PRIORITY.
Second many people lost their lifes or suffer because their leaders thought that they was trojan horses.
Any one who desagree with us does not mean that he is a trojan horse!
If I am so sensitive about the freedom of expresion is because I want to speak in the future and I want to be free to speak.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Anansi,

<<KBM (I'm guessing that's me)- don't waffle about the Netherlands or Wilders. Wilders hasn't been stopped from giving controversial viewpoints. He's a member of parliament (House of Representatives) for goodness sakes.>>

Geert Wilders is under police protection 24/7 because of constant death threats from Islamists aimed at terminating his right to speak (Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist in Amsterdam on 2 Nov 2004 after making a film about women under Islam).

Geert Wilders was the first parliamentarian of an EU country to be refused entry to another EU country. On 12 Feb 2009 he was detained at Heathrow and returned to the Netherlands on the orders of the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. He had been invited to play his film Fitna and talk to the House of Lords about the problem of Islam. The British government denied him the right to speak.

Geert Wilders was investigated by the public prosecutor at the behest of the Dutch government to determine whether his film Fitna had broken Dutch "hate" laws. The prosecutor determined that he hadn't.

Geert Wilders was subsequently ordered to stand trial by a Dutch court which reversed the public prosecutor's finding. This was motivated by opposing political factions. He currently awaits trial.

Geert Wilders has a warrant outstanding against him issued by the Jordanian government, which seeks to prosecute him for blasphemy. If he travels to a country with an extradition treaty with Jordan he faces the risk of deportation to Jordan to stand trial.

Geert Wilders' film Fitna consists almost entirely of verses from the Koran juxtaposed with terrorist actions motivated by those verses.

Ironically "formerly UK based Jihadist Omar Bakri said that “Fitna” could have been produced by Muslim extremists" but because it was produced by a non-Muslim it constitutes "hate" speech.
http://www.poligazette.com/2008/03/29/fitna-could-have-been-made-by-al-qaeda/

I'm having difficulty reconciling your statement that "Wilders hasn't been stopped from giving controversial viewpoints" with the apparent reality. What exactly do you mean by "hasn't been stopped"?

Fitna the movie:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/2/Fitna-Documentary-about-Islam-660675.html

Geert Wilders interviewed about Fitna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGh3WNsfTb4

KMD:"Anything you say may be taken down and used as evidence against you."

Well then, I take it back.

Anansi...KBM
Jewely...KMD
I seem to be having an identity crisis.

Stevenl,

Sorry: I'm having an horrific time with this site to-night so have only been able to get back to you now...and I think that, in the meantime, the answer I would have given has been expressed.

Jewely - From a somewhat cynical perspective, I don't think your impressions as a youngster about Free Speech were too far off the mark at all: - it seems indeed that the one who gets the most applause at the end of a speech does earn the right to go on to make others!

BTW, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that I welcome the addition of your posts to this forum because I enjoy the freshness they bring.

KFC, - "Identity crisis"? Why?

Just recently one of my topics was ejected on the grounds that is was conspiracy theory.I can understand OLO wanting to remain credible,but this was a scientific study done by Prof Niels Harrit on 9/11.He and another 8 scientists have found Nano Thermite [a highly advanced exlosive] in the rubble of the towers.

Now unlike AGW,chemistry at this level is a very exact science.Many thousands of engineers and scientists had serious doubts about Building 7 which came down in a classic controlled explosion.Building 7 was not included in the official enquiry and was not impacted by aircraft.According to Harrit ,this evidence is irrefutable.

This is well worth viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Arjay,
Debunking the 911 conspiracy theory:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Ahhhh, a breath of common-sense, and a pleasure to read, thanks KMB.

We should all have absolutely free speech, and if exercised and objected to, an absolutely unbiased and independent arbitrator to decide if it is offensive or not. I note you refer to a Judge’s opinion. Lord Mansfield, a very famous and good British jurist, said a popular judge is a nasty and pernicious individual.

You know my views on judgmental people, they are an abomination in the sight of the Lord, and a Judge was never an option, They banned Judges in English law totally and completely in 1640, in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. They even said that if a Judge judged three times, he lost his house, his land and his right to vote, and did what they called disabled him. They made A Judge a virtual outlaw. The English had some good ideas, and they came to Australia with the English. What they did not do, was extend these privileges to Roman Catholic members of English society, until 1828, and then only on strict conditions.

Passions ran high between the English Protestants and Roman Catholic Irish and Scots and they spent centuries trying to kill each other. It was only as the Empire expanded that the English had to let the Scots and Irish into the army, and the public service, to have enough people to run it, that led to a change of heart. Just a the English took Irish land, so the Roman Catholic Church took English land, and during the reign of terror of Cromwell, the 11 years of the republic, Roman Catholic rights were totally suspended, churches and monasteries were sacked and ruined and the land given back to the English protestants to farm.

Free speech was not truly tolerated but if you were a Protestant Englishman and went to Church, you were guaranteed a jury trial, and a fair just and impartial tribunal of fact. A Judge is not a tribunal, he is a despot. They are the same type of person that dispensed justice under Roman Catholic Rule, and got banned in 1640

Foxy 's point is correct “The right to exercise any right should be controlled
to an extent whereby it is not detrimental to society.
Freedom should not be confused with licence, as the
article points out. “
It seems to me that the crux of the problem people have with FOS it three fold.

By adding the term 'right' to FOS some then argue on grounds of 'rights' not the better term “basic entitlement”. While I agree the argument is somewhat pedantic the nuance is that FOS and many other so called “rights” are in fact conditional/has restrictions in any society.

The next issue seems to be a “black letter” literal/legalistic interpretation of the topic without reference the logical differences that exist in societies and need to be accommodated. Hence my often quoted for every entitlement(right) there is an equal and opposite responsibility

As a broad generality those who complain the loudest about FOS are usually those with hard and fast agendas and/or are really campaigning about the possible loss of their 'what they believe is their unfettered “right” to be illogical/ factually lazy in their arguments. In the context of OLO that means exercising agendas [axe grinding], prejudices rather than discussion.

(FYI for those who wonder about the group is such it has little to do with shared Greenie or otherwise perspectives it is simply that they TEND to want to discuss rather than “axe grind”[agendas] and believe in manners. )

"I seem to be having an identity crisis."
Sorry KGB!

"the answer I would have given has been expressed."

See I would hate that.

"it seems indeed that the one who gets the most applause at the end of a speech does earn the right to go on to make others!"

Ah yes well I also thought people with big eyes could see further.

"BTW, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that I welcome the addition of your posts to this forum because I enjoy the freshness they bring."

Thank you Romany, I did forget to do one of those "hello I am here and new on this site" type messages. Hanging around here is certainly making me wish I paid more attention at school or went to uni or read more or was just born with knowledge.

"....As a broad generality those who complain the loudest about FOS are usually those with hard and fast agendas and/or are really campaigning about the possible loss of their 'what they believe is their unfettered “right” to be illogical/ factually lazy in their arguments. In the context of OLO that means exercising agendas [axe grinding], prejudices rather than discussion...." (Quote:examinater)

That'll do nicely!

We are not honest persons and we play cheap, dirty, games withouht any interest for truth and justice.
When a conservative says a migrant to return back to his country because he desagree with migrant's ideas, then the conservative called racist who violates migrant's basic rights, freedom of expression, I agree with it!
BUT When a left says a conservative migrant to return back to his country because desagree with his ideas, then no one call the left racist or that he violates migrant's basic rights, freedom of expression.
I read the posts at least from three lefts to call a migrant to Go home and no one from the other lefts said a word, no one care to protect migrant's basic rifgts.
Why? The human rights, the freedom of expression, the hatters come only from one side?
I love CJ Morgan's "Hang on a sec, haters" and he forgot that he asked colonel Rouge to"Go home, Col. You don't belong here" Who is the realy hater, who violated very basic human rights, who violate essentcial migrant's rights.
What will hapen hapen if every one do the same thing to any migrant who desagree with him? GO HOME? WHAT IS THIS? NO ONE FROM THE KNOWN LEFTS IN THE FORUM, WROTE ANYTHING AGAINST CJ Morgan, NO ONE TRIED TO PROTECT MIGRANT'S BASIC RIGHTS.
IS THERE ANYTHING WORST FROM TO TELL A MIGRANT TO GO HOME, THAT HE DOES NOT BELONG HERE?
IF THIS IS NOT MANY GIGATONE HATE THEN WHAT IS HATE?
In this forum there some persons who could win the first international award in hypocricy! You won the award in hypocrisy but lost your credibility!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

k-M-b: Your hero for free speech, Geert Wilders, is all for making strident comments about Islam and hateful comments about Muslim people in general, but is 'spuugzat'(sick to death-very loosly translanted) about the anti Israel: please note anti ISRAEL, not Judaism, demonstrations that took place in Rotterdam last weekend.

Why is it 'free speech' to express opinions about a whole people and their religion, practised in various degrees, but not to express opinions about a nation state? Why is it 'anti-semitism' to critize or voice concern about what Israel does?

If Wilders was truly a champion for free speech, he would welcome the voicing of opinions different to his own. He doesn't. That's why he is on to his third political party. He doesn't even like listening to the differences of opinions within the most right wing party in the Netherlands.

Anansi,

Geert Wilders is not issuing death threats against the anti-Israel demonstraters.

Please show me where Geert Wilders has made "hateful comments about Muslim people in general".

You are trying to create a false dichotomy between Islamic anti-Israel and Islamic anti-Jewish sentiment.
The sort of anti-Israel demonstrations I have seen on the web are characterised by calls to violence against Jews.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QOyRipFULNY

Perhaps Geert Wilders is 'spuugzat' of the fact that these demonstrations inciting violence are permitted whereas his objections to them are criminalised as "hate" speech.

Damn it all folks. I only got notification of this thread today and I see that Steven and the others have already sent CJ away with his tail between his legs.
I so wanted to give him his third spanking.
I can't deny him his right of 'Freedom to Hide' though.

Antonios, your post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2738#61699 was right on the money. Now with a supposedly leftist government, no-one is screaming out against the government any more. Rudd has declared war on people smugglers - that would be a major crime for Howard. Our troops are still engaged in the Bush wars, as are Obama's. People are still sent to third world holes to be tortured. Nothing changes except the views of the biased public.

"Nothing changes except the views of the biased public."

Not much to that view, what with blinkers, rose-coloured glasses, and their heads in the sand!
"Public Opinion", as real and quantifiable as a puff of smoke, until you upset it!

Unsurprising that Austin Gormless pops up in defence of the haters. No tail between the legs here, old chap - rather a long weekend away from the computer. As happens often, the thread's moved on and I saw little point in going back to the beginning.

However, since you've mentioned it, I note that STEVENLMEYER (I'll return the compliment of shouting his name at him) has been as disingenuous as usual with this thread. He focuses completely upon his presumed right to offend and/or insult anyone on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity, but totally sidesteps that part of the judgement against Toben where the Judge refers to "humiliating" and "intimidating" people on those grounds.

STEVENLMEYER claims not to be interested in the Australia's Racial Discrimination Act - the longstanding law under which Toben was convicted - but claims that freedom of speech is dead because of it. The latest judgement against Toben was brought explicitly due to his defiance of orders made under the RDA, and via a complaint by the Council of Australian Jewry.

If you haters are so upset by this, why don't you agitate to have the RDA amended or repealed? I'm sure it'd suit your agenda and it would certainly be more honest than hiding your hate behind a noble concept like freedom of speech.

Antonios - as I recall, that comment to Col Rouge was in response to some xenophobic prattle or other of his, and was supposed to be ironic. Since English is obviously not your first language, I guess that's why you misunderstood my meaning.

"Damn it all folks. I only got notification of this thread today and I see that Steven and the others have already sent CJ away with his tail between his legs.
I so wanted to give him his third spanking." (Quote: .us........less)

Sorry? What was that? Sorry?

(Antonio: I admire your non-bias in not caring about whether 'nastiness' comes from the so-called Left/Right. But I KNEW that the comment you referred to was a response. Cause and effect. If you ignore the first and concentrate just on the second, you will do little to support those who are the targets of such vitriol. You will assist in enabling those who target them, to flourish.That surely was not your intent?

CJ Morgan, Ginx,
IT WAS NOT A RESPONSE TO COL.
"I've found a vid on YouTube of Col discussing patriotic matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE
I think that Britain needs him more than we do.
Go home, Col. You don't belong here.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 22 February 2009 9:17:35 PM"
As you can see was not a response to Col,
When Col wrote that Morgan is a racist Morgan responded with the follow text.
"How amusing to be called a nasty racist by Col the Troll, who seems very touchy for a Monday morning.
My suggestion that he doesn't belong in Australia stems from his tedious habit of babbling on about his former home, its repulsive politicians, and how they represent the peak of human civilisation. I don't think I've read anything at all from him over the years that might indicate any kind of affinity with Australia - outside of Melbourne, that is.
"Race" doesn't come into it."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2536&page=0#57218
IS THERE ANY LOCAL IN ANY COUNTRY WHO THINK OR EXPECT FROM MIGRANTS NOT TO LOVE AND CARE FOR THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGINE?
Did migrants sign any contract coming here that they must stop to love and care for their country of origine?
According to international law the migrants have the right to express their opinion without any descrimination. If Col loves England or not is his business, if he loves Australia or not is not only his business but our business too. If we want migrants to love Australia the we must respect their rights and not to tell them
"Go home, Col. You don't belong here."
I tried to open a thread about it but my thread rejected!
Col and any other migrant belong here!
Sorry Morgan but you kicked me on the head. I am not hater not a tired old trojan horse as wrote for me Examinator.
I will answer to him.
CJ Morgan, stay in the forum WE NEED YOU, an other day I will tell you my HUGE mistakes!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Ginx, you must have missed the previous threads where I gave CJ a drubbing. Twice. He appears to enjoy being caught out and spanked. Then he feigns disinterest and disappears.

CJ, I almost choked on my Guinness, when I read your latest rant on 'haters' and those who, in your opinion 'insult anyone on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity'. The choking came when you abused Antonios with the 'English is obviously not your first language' jibe.
You accuse me of defending 'haters'. Who are the 'haters' Why are they 'haters'? Do you even know or was it just another spontaneous outburst with no substance? I see that you've returned to your childish name-calling traits. What a dolt.

Antonios, you are right, we need CJ. We all need a clown to make us laugh.

Gormless - Antonios has informed us before that English is not his first language. My comment was not a "jibe", rather an acknowledgement that my ironic comment might have been easy for him to misunderstand. What's your excuse?

I've clearly stated that my problem is not with those who insult or offend others for any reason, rather it's with those odious types like Toben who regard it as their right to humiliate and intimidate others on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity, and do so in the name of "free speech". What part of that didn't you understand?

Antonios - you're quite correct, my comment to Col was in response to one of his tedious references to the awful British PM Thatcher. It was directed specifically at him and wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

More to the point of this thread, despite the fact that I disagree with nearly every odious comment that Col posts here, I agree that he has every right to do so as long as he stays within the forum rules. That goes for Gormless too, even if his intent is simply to pick a fight.

Anansi,
An update relating to your claim that <<Wilders hasn't been stopped from giving controversial viewpoints.>>
"Denmark has postponed a conference on free speech to which Wilders was invited by the Danish People’s Party....according to information received by Berlingske Tidende newspaper, the conference has been delayed again because of government’s concern over Geert Wilders.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/1077

"Ginx, you must have missed the previous threads where I gave CJ a drubbing. Twice. He appears to enjoy being caught out and spanked. Then he feigns disinterest and disappears." (Quote: .us........less).

Not another one!

You gave him a drubbing, did you? Did you really!

Well continue to exercise on your rubber band buddy, because you come across as some sort of puny little twerp, verbally exercising the one piece of sinew he has mistaken for a muscle.

I'm quite fond of looking at post history. Oh yes!! I see it! I can see where you frightened him out of his wits....sheesh!
________________________

Antonios; I am a migrant. I am of mixed 'coloured/white' race.(My mother is a purple colour with orange dots-and my father is just white;..skin/teeth/hair/eyeballs/toenails).

Post history again. Not yours, but CJ's and TB. I repeat I admire your scrupulous lack of bias, but you won't get that from me! Not in this case.

I AM damn biased! I too have always been surprised at TB's uxorious devotion to the odious Thatcher, and fail to understand why he didn't remain in the UK during her dictatorship.

However, that is his business. What I object to is the incessant scathing acidity toward ANYONE he sees as less than him. This almost a British Empire ethic of putting 'subjects in their place'.

Thatcherism at its best.

Read the post histories, THEN tell me that TB has been treated unfairly.

(I'll give you a ring one day. We don't live so far from one
another).

(Apologies in talking about you rather than to you TB, but that's the way it has panned out).

Ginx
I do not say to you to agree or like Col.
What I say to you is that you must respect his right to express his ideas, his opinion, if he like thatser to promote her, if he like egland to promote england. IN NO WAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL HIM GO HOME, YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE.
Ginx if you or any one else violate Col rights as migrant and he takes you to the court, I will support him in the court and I will fight for his rights. NOT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH HIS IDEAS BUT BECAUSE YOU OR ANY ONE ELSE WILL VIOLATE HIS BASIC RIGHTS.
Do you understand me?
THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS COME FIRST!
Col does not have to ask you or me what idea he will promote, IT IS HIS RIGHT. THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS THE BASE OF DEMOCRACY.
If you are a progresive person then you must fight to extend this rights, to deepen this rights. NOT TO LIMIT IT.
Last weeks I saw an attack against the freedom of expression, we do not have hate problem here, we must show understanding, we must support the democracy and fight to make it stronger, not weaker.
We do not need more rules, more restrictions, more orders and more limits.
We are mature, and responsible and we know what we are doing with respect to others rights.
Few persons try to make the forum to work as in bysiness, the manager to make the plans, to put the rules and orders and the rest to follow these rules, these orders.
These persons have huge mistake. The labors execute the orders of the managers because they have no other choice, not because they agree with the managers, not because the manager is right.
In the forum we are all equal, and we will not allow any one to create first and second class members, we will not allow any one to BLOCK any member from the forum because he/she does not agree with his ideas.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios: and he must respect the rights of others. And he does not.

But; should he take me to Court, it will be interesting to see you in action! If nothing else; it is a case that would be fairly colourful if you defend TB in the same way as you write your posts.

AND I MEAN THAT MOST SINCERELY, OK? ANTONIOS!!

Ginx
I defent a migrant, a human being in a foreing environment, a person under tremendus mental press of cause his break from his homeland.
Humans are social beings, they live in groups, the migrants has break their contact from the past, from their homeland and they try hard to become member of the new country.
This proccess is not an easy proccess, especial for people who did not have problems in their country.
But he is a human, he is a migrant, he try hard to become part from the Australian society, and when he was very close to finish from this HUGE problem, comes Morgan and says him that he loves england, he does not belong here, go home.
The whole proccess to become australian, to feel australian become ONE MILLION PIECES!
Col is against alone, BUT THIS IS VERY HARD, VERY PAINFULL!
Do you thing only Morgan said him go home, you do not belong here?
Col heard many times that he is a foreinger, a stranger as every other migrant herad it many times.
ONLY A MIGRANT KNOWS WHAT MEANS LONES, WHAT MEANS ISOLATION, WHAT MEANS REJECTION, WHAT MEANS GO HOME , YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE.
I had a similar probkem in my workplace.
A saleman every time came to the section I was working said me laughing "go home no future for you in Australia".
I had no choice I was sole parent with three children, I try to find my position in Australia and he said me repeadedly, go home no future for you in australia.
I was very angry with him but I needed my job.
One time when he left I went in a corner, to hide my self and start crying. I do not know how but the employer show me, and stoped the story, the saleman later left his job, BUT THEY ARE VERY PAINFULL JOKES.
Now you know why I am with Col and any migrant, and why I HAVE TO FIGHT FOR MIGRANTS RIGHTS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

stinx:"Well continue to exercise on your rubber band buddy, because you come across as some sort of puny little twerp, verbally exercising the one piece of sinew he has mistaken for a muscle."

Oh dear, yet more insipid personal abuse, stinxy...

It seems you believe in unfettered free speech after all.

stinx:"I'm quite fond of looking at post history"

stinx (in response to my quoting post history : "really septic-you have too much time on your hands"

I'm always amused by how easily hypocrites contradict themselves.

Austin Powerless :"He appears to enjoy being caught out and spanked. Then he feigns disinterest and disappears."

A typical lap-dog's response. Make lots of yapping noises, then return to hiding under its owner's skirts, having given the leg of the couch a damned good humping on the way. "Who's mummy's good little boy? Have another bikkie, sweetums".

Steven, good for you for raising the topic and for being so willing to encompass differences of opinion. There is a bit of a cabal on OLO who think that free speech is all well and good - for them. You have had the courage to advocate for someone you and I and most other people despise and that is not trivial.

BTW, stinxy, my handle is "Antiseptic". While you're welcome to use your own variation, bear in mind I reserve the same right.

Speaking of haters, here's good old Antiwomen, flaming away as usual.

Given the latitude he gets in this forum to express his sad frustrations as offensively as he likes, it's hard to see how he can legitimately gripe about his freedom of speech being limited in any way - at OLO at least.

I imagine, however, that if he speaks to people in real life the way he does here, he might find himself effectively silenced quite frequently.

We should change the title of this thread, to.."Free attack inder speech"!

CJ Morgan,

Come off it CJ. He's HUGE, as D.Eastlake would say. Don't you remember? He's very intimidating and I'm sure in real life you wouldn't be yapping away at him.

CJMorgan:"Given the latitude he gets in this forum to express his sad frustrations as offensively as he likes, "

I'm only offensive to those who are offensive to me, little fella. I'm not fond of lapdogs, for a start.

CJMorgan:"that if he speaks to people in real life the way he does here, he might find himself effectively silenced quite frequently."

Oh, what a brave little man. That's nearly as as brave as those brave sould who refuse to be "intimidated" on an opinion forum.

Now off you toddle and find someone else's leg to hump, little fella.

Houellebecq:"I'm sure in real life you wouldn't be yapping away at him."

Actually, so am I...

You're so... intimidating, Antiwomen. You're a legend in your own mind.

How's your love life, by the way?

Well, Ginx, what caused your little outburst at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2738#61790?
Have I somehow upset you or did you just want an excuse to revert to your insult-slinging manner? Someone on the forum welcomed you back as 'the vile Ginx'. It's obvious why.
The fact is that I don't care what some dried-up old dike with hairy armpits thinks of me.

CJMorgan:"that if he speaks to people in real life the way he does here, he might find himself effectively silenced quite frequently." This from a guy that wrote that my 'intent is simply to pick a fight'.
Oh, if only he was here. I'd spank him stupid. Too late - he's already reached that level.

Thanks usless! Honestly your 'dried up dike?? with hairy armpits' had me in fits!! That's the truth-Brownies Honour!

It amazes me when someone joins a thread, and the first thing he does is talk about thumping? someone/getting them to run away with their tail between their legs.The bloke you refer to has hardly got a track record of that,-something glaringly apparent! You don't agree with him? OK. fine. But no;..you HAVE to demonstrate your 'dominant male' fallacy.

It is a pleasure to point this out to you! Many disagree here. Many will disparage (yes! I DO know that!), but very few, if any, will try to show they are a conquering hero!

And here comes the squit to jump on the bandwagon. He can only manage when he's in company.

(SEPTIC; go for it. I can expect nothing else, particularly from you. If I have distorted your tag (really?), then I can't complain if you do too;-now can I?

Other than that,-not much else to say, that I haven't already said to you downstairs. You are a pack rat. I'll address the leader, not the runt)

hahahaha Wonderful, Wonderful. Bravo!

Antonios: I read your post fully. I KNOW what it's like to be treated the way you have. In the 70's I was at first refused entry into Australia because of my cultural background.

I was told by my first Aussie friend to keep the coloured part of my background 'quiet'. The hell I will. I grew up seeing racism because my older siblings were darker than I was.

We can carry on with this until the cows come home. You will NOT get me to feel ANY sympathy for TB who possesses a cutting sense of humour and is intelligent and eloquent. There it stops!

This fella is well able to hold his own here, if you choose to 'take his case' so be it;- but don't waste your post count any further in making him a victim. He is not, and I have not a shred of doubt that he would never see himself this way.

And don't waste your time trying to convince me of same. You will not succeed.

EXAMINATOR, (Re: Sunday, 3 May 2009 5:43:25 PM)

Why this case?

I counselled against bringing it in the first place. I followed it hoping the court would dismiss it. I was DISMAYED at the BREADTH of Judge Lander's judgement.

To the best of my knowledge this is the FIRST TIME an Australian judge has used the fact that people may feel offended and insulted as grounds for inhibiting free speech.

You write about giving up rights to "facilitate relative community harmony." That gives a licence to any disaffected group to invoke censorship. Any comment that upsets somebody can be said to upset "community harmony." That includes your comments about "uber-Zionist" conspiracies.

FOXY (Re: Sunday, 3 May 2009 6:58:35 PM)

Judge Holmes' exceptions to the right of free speech are well known and generally accepted today. You do not have a right to slander or libel people.

However the US Supreme Court, including Holmes', have always been at pains to interpret these exceptions NARROWLY. I doubt Holmes would have gone along with EXAMINATOR's theory of "indirect vilification."

So far as I am aware Holocaust denial is not a crime in the US – nor should it be.

FOXY

If truthfulness were a requirement for free speech every imam, priest and rabbi would have to be silenced!

CJ MORGAN still prattles on about "haters" without engaging with the issues. But, then again, neither do any of the other pro-censorship posters here.

ANANSI (Re: Sunday, 3 May 2009 7:27:14 PM)

I am not naïve about Toben. However until he directly incites violence or engages in actual slander or libel he should not be permitted to promulgate his garbage. This is a case of the cure – censorship – being worse than the disease – Toben's freedom to lie.

What none of the pro-censorship posters here seem willing to acknowledge is that restrictions on free speech can and WILL be used as a tool to erode civil liberties. Where would we be today if the Gay rights movement had been silenced because their comments would have offended Christians, Muslims and Jews?

GinX, if you'd thought before you screeched, you might have bothered to find out what it was all about.

fact: I referred to a 'spanking'
garbage: you referred to a 'thumping' - I thought that you would know the difference.

The spanking was relevant to posts on previous threads. You being a self-professed expert in digging up old posts failed dismally there, didn't you sweetie! As for your opinion of the 'bloke's' track record - are you having a laugh? She's having a laugh. Or do you really see CJ as the voice of reason and goodwill?
What's a 'squit'? Is it a squid with dyslexia? Or 'quits' in jail language? Looking forward to more PMT-fuelled rubbish now that you've escaped from Glenside.

Incidentally, your next post referred to the cows coming home, but we already know that you're back. Moo, moo, moo!

Something's been bothering me about the way that Gormless suddenly appeared from under his rock, after an absence from OLO for some time, apparently for the specific purpose of trolling me. Now it's clicked - before he morphed into "Austin Powerless" on OLO, he was "Jack the Lad" [ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=48355 ], who used to post prolific white supremacist, homophobic and holocaust denial drivel up until about a year ago.

No wonder he hates me so much :)

Indeed, he used to refer frequently to the "holohoax", as he called it. Strangely, after he'd made an utter idiot of himself about a year ago, he disappeared from OLO. Barely a couple of weeks later, "Austin Powerless" joined OLO.

You are "Jack the Lad", aren't you Gormless? You know, the white supremacist, homophobic, holocaust denier twat that even our resident wingnuts couldn't stand?

What a joke.

I'm offline until next week. See you under yet another pseudonym some time, no doubt. What a hero you are.

Jack the Lad? I knew there was something familiar!

.us........less, Did you come back to OLO just to attack others, rather than put your opinion on the thread topic?
Your very first post was the delusion of dominating another poster.

Thumping scthumping, I'm confusing you with the squit's 'humping'. Funny that.

Squit? it's onomatopoeic.....

Ha ha you pair of losers, can you back up your accusations? Or is it just more hot air? Maybe I'm also the long-lost 'Boaz' who was also capable of spanking you.

CJ, if trolling is the act of me having a go at your practise of posting to a thread with insults to those who you don't agree with, avoiding questions put to you by those posters in reply and disappearing when you don't like a dose of your own medicine, then I must be trolling you. Your little whinge, 'No wonder he hates me so much' was pathetic.
Of course, I forgot, anyone who you can't shout down is a 'troll' or a 'sock'. Much better that, than you should admit defeat. What a plonker.

Ginx, you profess to be, like CJ, an expert in going over numerous old posts from the darkest annals of OLO. Conveniently, you are selective in what material you then choose to comment on. If you read all my posts (which, apparently, you seem to have the time to do - a sign of an empty life) you would see that my posts are not 'just to attack others, rather than put (my) opinion on the thread topic. Unlike you, who jumps in screeching before researching all the facts. Silly Old Moo.

All we need is Curly to complete your threesome.

Jack the Lad; I don't need to do one damn thing. Your style is glaring, your hatred is a permanent state of being.

Before; and now,-ALL you do is attack. I don't back away from aggression, but I DO like to pass the occasional opinion!!;- that's kinda what we're here for,-and I did so here fairly early on, but as you were;-as you are now;-you attack and boast of conquest.

Why don't you pass an opinion, rather than boasting of 'giving a drubbing', or 'spanking' people.

That doesn't show strength; it shows weakness.

Billionaire media mogul..[AND BILDERBERGER]Rupert/Murdoch gave a strange response when asked about plans for mainstream news websites to charge for content,declaring,“The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rupert-murdoch-internet-will-soon-be-over.html

Cyberbullying Bill
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cyberbullying-bill-not-about-protecting-kids-it-is-about-shutting-down-the-opposition.html

Rep.Linda Sánchez,is behind the so-called Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,an effort to impose draconian regulations on the internet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/david-rothschild-climate-change-ad.html
another bilderberger..lol
their plan is to shut down the web

The End of Free/Speech?..Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-end-of-free-speech-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel.html

October/16,2004,President Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill,the Global Anti-Semitism/Review/Act.This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ban-ki-moons-moral-failure.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/newspaper-britain-officially-totalitarian-state.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/taleb-global-crisis-vastly-worse-than-1930s-buy-gold-and-copper.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/group-names-25-lenders-responsible-for-economic-meltdown.html

bilderburger details of this years adgenda are being revealed..[last years was to drop the price of petrol
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/june2008/061008_secret_agenda.htm
[to keep the peasents in their auto,mobile[cash-cows]..anyhow on the adgenda so far is

The future of the US dollar and US economy:..The plan..to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy...They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead.

The bank“stress tests”now being conducted by Washington are little more than a shameless hoax:..Based on the irrational assumption that the economy won’t get as bad as it already is!

Bilderberg is quietly subsuming that US unemployment numbers will hover around 14% by the end of this year,..far higher than the official numbers released by the US government...[aimed at impoverishing the fast growing middle classes,into serfs renting and working for food]

Depression or a prolonged stagnation?..(Stated as such in the pre-meeting booklet sent out to attendees.)

Bilderberg is looking at two options:Either a prolonged,agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation,decline,and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order,with less governmental/sovereignty.

There will be a final push for the enactment of Lisbon Treaty,
One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10854
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=1750
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=bilderberg+agenda&SpellState=n-1914233252_q-Nlmw33MQgO5MviZV92LmlwAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-top

http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk%e2%80%99s-royal-mint-uses-75-more-gold-as-investor-demand-expands.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-terror-stops-occur-every-three-minutes-in-london.htm

Steven,
Most cases like this get settled before they get to court tribunals and such.

I cite the case in QLD about a 60 year old sign about a local sports ground named after a local player which included the the nickname "N".(one complainant)
There were complaints about 'c**n' cheese.(several complainants )
The point here is the 'reasonable man' principal. in the 'N' case the sign was amended. In the 'C', dismissed. Where was your out rage there? I contend your outrage is over the top so I ask why? The answer is already given.

It seems to me that the judge used this test and arrived at a sensible compromise.

As for the “'uber' conspiracy “ Your words not mine. I see no “conspiracy” like I said in many arguments before you have adopted line and verse of the Israeli spin. Many of your topics tend to have the same link/under current.

Of course it implies censorship. FOS is a subjective entitlement. There are clear cases where Jewish newspapers advertisers in the US boycotted a news paper for one comment that criticised an Israeli action. And a Community TV network because one speaker on one current affairs program once was pro Palestinian was attacked in Washington to remove their subsidy because the station refused to make a pro Israeli program. (isn't that PR activism censorship?). Israel's whole 'homeland' issue was based on PR.
NB I don't favour either side.

Censorship exists the question is was this judgement excessive....not to me (full stop exclamation mark) The absence of one extreme doesn't automatically imply the opposite. That would be a 'uber' conspiracy!

PS
Even the above post was censored by OLO because in contained the black derogitory word even though it was in context the other word was 'Coon Cheese' Clearly the issue is proportion and in your argument your proportion in my oppinion is skewed i suspect because of your bias.

Ginx, I suggested that you read all my posts to get the 'big picture' but you retorted with 'I don't need to do one damn thing'. Don't you want to have all the information at hand before making your judgement or is it just that your opinions are fixed in stone and don't anyone dare point you elsewhere? Talk about showing weakness!

If you could have actually read some of my past posts instead of being the little rebel that won't be told what to do, you would have seen that I have, on many occasions, posted opinions. But you wouldn't want to admit that, would you?

That doesn't show strength either. But I don't think that you'd get that.

Peter Jackson is remaking "The Dambusters" movie.

In the original one of them had a dog called "N", the word was said 22 times.

Do you think, Examinator, they'll use this little four legged character under its original name?

Would a case be presented about the word or history?

Must say, when I moved to Oz a few years ago I was horrified about the cheese name.

Former..S&L/Regulator:..Absolutely A Banking Bailout Coverup

Complete transcript
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html
Full interview video is here
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

There’s so much information,..you simply have to read or watch the entire thing.

Some/snippets:

BILL MOYERS:Yeah...Are you saying that Timothy Geithner,the Secretary of the Treasury,and others in the administration,with the banks,are engaged in a cover-up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

WILLIAM K.BLACK:Absolutely.

BILl:You are.

WILLIAM:Absolutely,because..they are scared to death...They’re scared to death of a collapse.They’re afraid that if they admit the truth,that many of the large banks are insolvent.

They think..Americans..are a bunch of cowards,and that we’ll run screaming to the exits...And we won’t rely on deposit-insurance.And, by the way,you can rely on deposit-insurance..And it’s foolishness...All right?

Now,it may be worse than that...You can impute more cynical motives...But I think they are sincerely..just panicked about,“We just can’t let the big/banks fail.”..That’s wrong.

MOYERS:But what might happen,at this point,if in fact they keep from us the true health of the banks?

BLACK:Well,then the banks will,as they did in Japan,..either stay enormously weak,or Treasury will be forced to increasingly absurd giveaways of taxpayer money.

We’ve seen how horrific AIG—and remember,they kept secrets from everyone.

MOYERS:A.I.G...did?

BLACK:..What we’re doing with../?—..no,Treasury and both administrations...The Bush/administration and now the Obama administration..kept secret from us what was being done with AIG.

AIG was being used secretly to bail out..favored banks like UBS and like Goldman-Sachs...Secretary Paulson’s firm,..that he had come from being CEO...It..got the largest amount of money.

$12.9 billion.And they didn’t want us to know that...And it was only Congressional pressure,and not Congressional pressure,by the way,on Geithner,but..Congressional pressure on AIG.

Where Congress said,..“We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money.”..And,..you know,..when he was Treasury Secretary,Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury..what they ought to do with AIG...And he put Goldman/Sachs on it.

MOYERS:Even though Goldman/Sachs had a big vested stake.

BLACK:Massive stake...And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman/Sachs before becoming Treasury-Secretary...Now,..in most stages in American history,that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn’t be allowed in civilized society....

Jewely,
Interesting question, I doubt that they will.

As I understand it the word comes from the term Negroid but was abreviated and now has become an insult.
It's a bit like the word root the US says "root for your mate" is quite acceptable but the Ausie conotation is some what different.

To me I think it's a bit over kill but laws tend to be made to cover the lowest denominator. If the N word was acceptable then the more aggressive would misuse it in fact or by intention.
But the law is the law I can exist without the word and it doesn't fundementally change anybody's rights or sensitivities so what the heck.

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is the embodiment of the liberal, left wing loonie. She has no problems with imams in her own country calling for the overthrow of the government and the universal application of sharia law but bans people whose opinions might cause offence to people like her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwJPQUlkQCw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebrusselsjournal%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F3903&feature=player_embedded
Her ilk, and there appear to be many, are leading the western world into an abyss.

I should probably have linked the original article to give context:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3903

"Ginx, I suggested that you read all my posts to get the 'big picture' but you retorted with 'I don't need to do one damn thing'. Don't you want to have all the information at hand before making your judgement or is it just that your opinions are fixed in stone and don't anyone dare point you elsewhere? Talk about showing weakness!

If you could have actually read some of my past posts instead of being the little rebel that won't be told what to do, you would have seen that I have, on many occasions, posted opinions. But you wouldn't want to admit that, would you?

That doesn't show strength either. But I don't think that you'd get that.
Posted by Austin Powerless, Friday, 8 May 2009 6:50:10 PM"
_________________________

There you go again! NOT ONCE have you posted on the topic of this thread squity. All you've done is harp on, and on,...and ON.

squity/.us........less/Jack the Lad. Three persona's and puffs of hot air! All mouth and no trousers.

You know the thing about being seen as a fool, then posting and proving it? (Think I got that right...!).

What's your opinion on free speech;-or are you going to stick to just demonstrating it?

Ginx, 'NOT ONCE have you posted on the topic of this thread squity'. Doesn't that make two of us? Or are you somehow absolved of behaving as you demand all others do? Do you actually realise that you are pulling me up for something that you do too? At least I admit that I only posted retorts to a poster whose style I disagreed with. What's your excuse?

As can be seen, I did try to reason with you over the last couple of posts but you can't/won't allow yourself to understand this. Obviously, it's a waste of time trying to get through to you as you are either being awkward, thick, obtuse or any combination of those traits. What was that about 'being seen as a fool, then posting and proving it'? 'All you've done is harp on, and on,...and ON.' - sound familiar?
I rest my case. Over to you, sweetiepie.

Examinator, the 'n' word, as the PC types like to call it, comes from the Latin 'niger' meaning 'black'. Hence Nigeria, the Niger River etc. I don't see what the fuss is about the word as blacks use it amongst themselves freely. Apparently, it offends them much less than the thought police of the 'Newspeak Brigade'.

"To me I think it's a bit over kill but laws tend to be made to cover the lowest denominator. If the N word was acceptable then the more aggressive would misuse it in fact or by intention.
But the law is the law I can exist without the word and it doesn't fundementally change anybody's rights or sensitivities so what the heck."

What is with that picture add thing and the pop out scary face?

But if we edit out these words we change history. Make Nazi war movies where the Jewish are treated with dignity and respect and not called any bad names?

I foster children, I write reports about their time in my hosuehold. Recently I attempted to send reports with a sibling group going in to Long Term Care in what NSW calls a Life Story Book. I was told to edit out incidents where it was mentioned a child was scared or upset.

Doesn't the Freedom of Speech also imply to be honest no matter how hard it is to read/hear?

"Ginx, 'NOT ONCE have you posted on the topic of this thread squity'. Doesn't that make two of us? Or are you somehow absolved of behaving as you demand all others do? Do you actually realise that you are pulling me up for something that you do too?....." (Quote: Jack the Lad).

HELLOOOOOOO??

Jack the Lad: Check this thread; see if I passed an opinion on the thread topic.

Over to you......;sweetiepie.

('Rest my case'??...Gawd!, too much telly!)

Ginx, 'Check this thread; see if I passed an opinion on the thread topic.' I did, you didn't. Instead of just repeating my posts, how about pointing out or even quoting your thread contribution.

Or am I doomed to illogical behaviour and replies from you? This is getting to be weird.

('Ginx, 'Check this thread; see if I passed an opinion on the thread topic.')

"I did, you didn't." (Quote: The Squits).
_________________________

I give you:>>>>>>>>>>


This HAS been done before, though recently Tobin has been found guilty recently of his usual tripe.

Personally? I think he can prattle on as he wishes. The man is a total banker. BUT;- what IS dangerous about this jackass is how those less restrained than he, will interpret his fallacious bulldust.

THAT is the real problem.

Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 2 May 2009 6:30:09 PM
___________________________

The full post is there if you had had the intelligence to look, you tiresome little twerp.

AGAIN: are you NOW ready to contribute to the thread Jack the Lad, or are you going to continue doing what you did last year?

wrong again, Ginxy, all you did was attack Toben - you made no real contribution.

Then you go on with your infantile attempt at throwing an insult at me.

Newsflash! I couldn't give a rats arse what you think of me, especially as all your other posts are devoid of logic.

Maybe you should try HRT to help with your moods.

No-one else has continued posting to this thread so, if all that appears now is another of your stupid, meaningless, histrionic 'comebacks', I guess the thread's over.

"wrong again, Ginxy, all you did was attack Toben - you made no real contribution." (Quote: The Squits).
_________________________

When is a post not a post?;-when this cretin assesses it thus.
_________________________

"No-one else has continued posting to this thread so, if all that appears now is another of your stupid, meaningless, histrionic 'comebacks', I guess the thread's over.
Posted by Austin Powerless, Monday, 11 May 2009 5:09:27 PM"
_________________________

HA!! Nice try Jack the Lad. The thread is over when YOU stop posting your stupid, meaningless, histrionic 'comebacks'.

You decide. You are obviously not going to contribute to the thread other than to troll.

You stop. I'll stop. You don't. I won't. Simple. I know you can grasp simple.

Psstt.. Ginx. Call him "Popcorn Head" I have a four year old that uses this one a lot, but it works! It really does! I've seen her make other kids cry!

Just keep it on the down low... I have your back. That Lad says one thing and he'll get the na na nana na of all time.

the end notes of
Who’s Behind the ‘Pedophile Protection Act?'
make interesting balance?..to this topc

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=1845

"Unless otherwise noted, the following are articles I have written, posted in the archives of www.truthtellers.org.

1. “Rabbi Lapin: Christians Under ‘Relentless Attack’ by ‘Secular Judaism’” August 19, 2005.
2. “How the Bible Became ‘Hate Speech’ in California,” October 30, 2007. “ADL Expands Pro-Gay Education for Teachers” August 12, 2008.
3. Ribikoff’s prize-winning proposal is thoroughly documented in my 82-minute video, Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians, viewable on the homepage at www.truthtellers.org.
4. ibid.
5. ibid.
6. “Global Hate Crimes Gestapo Being Created,” September 20, 2005.
7. “Bible is Hate, says US Government,” April 9, 2008
8. “In Search of ‘Homegrown Terrorists’,” November 5, 2007
9. “How the Bible Became ‘Hate Speech’ in California,” October 30, 2007
10. “Did ADL Influence California’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling?” May 19, 2008
11. “Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC and ADL,” Americans for Legal Immigration, March 26, 2009, www.alipac.us.
12. “Chorus of Protest Grows Over Report Warning of Right Wing Radicalization,” FoxNews.com, April 15, 2009.
13. “Hate Bill Passed in House!,” April 30, 2009.
14. “Hate Bill Hearing Next Tuesday?,” May 6, 2009.
15. “ADL’s Foxman: Man of Faith?,” February 27, 2006.
16. “Talmud: Wellspring of Jewish Pornography Industry,” October 24, 2006, “Pedophilia: The Talmud’s Dirty Secret,” October 11, 2006, “Judaism and Homosexuality: A Marriage Made in Hell,” September 6, 2006.
17. “ACLU Top Heavy with Jews,” October 4, 2006.
18. “ADL’s ‘December Dilemma’,” December 5, 2007
19. “Jewish Activists Created Communism,” June 11, 2007
20. “Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish,” June 28, 2006
21. “The Jews Behind the Da Vinci Code,” May 26, 2006.
22. “Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Middle East,” August 1, 2006—
Israel’s Biblically-prophesied ascendance is considered in depth in my 60-minute video The Other Israel,viewable at the NPN Theater at www.truthtellers.org. Even more extensive development of this Biblical eschatology is found in my book,Israel:Our Duty,Our Dilemma,available at www.truthtellers.org

Fighting back the tears right now, Jewelly, please no 'na na nana'.

Don't know why you are defending the parrot, though.

"Fighting back the tears right now, Jewely, please no 'na na nana'."

Well since you said please honey bunny. It is of course permitted ie; in my household for one to defend oneself with something like "nah you are" but this normally leads to a "I'm not going to be your friend anymore" and the next minute two children are sitting on their beds with their hands on their knees and thinking about how nasty it is to spit at one another.

"Don't know why you are defending the parrot, though."

See that gave me the visual of this lovely little bird I owned once, some south american thing with lots of different bright colours. It was beautiful and could be quite tricky to handle because it was rather clever and had a nasty bite if upset. If I wanted it to do something, say get back in its cage, I would have to approach slowly and gently so it understood that the cage was temporary and a good place to be where it would be safe and looked after.

But I digress, my defending is side picking, I require no reason to pick a side, I don't need any reason or motive. I'm just qwerky like that

Hi Jewely, another one is 'peanut head'. A cop once called me that but when I asked him if it meant I was 'monkey nuts', he threatened to arrest me. He'd absolutley no sense of humour. His mates weren't much better.

"Hi Jewely, another one is 'peanut head'. A cop once called me that but when I asked him if it meant I was 'monkey nuts', he threatened to arrest me. He'd absolutley no sense of humour. His mates weren't much better."

Evening Austin, See I've heard the Australian police are very quick witted with friendly outgoing personalities. And you met a bad one and his mates, you're luck just about ran out that night my friend. I will keep peanut head a secret, you can't give any of my little state wards a single weapon. "Monkey nuts" is definately out.

[I am trying hard to not do that Troll thing]

But maybe I am stifling these small children's freedom of speech by not giving them full access to the english language. Free speech should be about having the words to use aye. And I just used "aye" - I feel a bit embaressed now.

Jewely - as it seems the actual thread is finished am gonna take this opportunity to ask something without running the risk of (I hope) de-railing.

I've been out of the country now for 3 years (My how time flies etc. etc.)and I have noticed both you and a couple of other posters recently using that "aye" you mentioned.

Is this a new thing that's crept into oral language? Buzz words (like the bloody "paradigm") and fashions in oral traditions come and go unrecorded in the written tradition and often, when one is away, on returning it seems as though one's style has become kinda outdated.
(Remember how quickly 'sick' and 'wicked' suddenly morphed into good things?)

So has 'Aye" - pronounced to rhyme with 'sigh' - become a new convention (from a TV show or an advert or something?), or does it represent the more pedestrian 'Eh'? - pronounced to rhyme with 'say'?

Part of what I do prepares students who are going overseas to study for both culture shock and the differences in oral and written English, so I am always on the look-out for stuff like this to tell them about.

p.s. The other day I initiated some of them into the Aussie ability to use the celebrated F-word as a noun, adjective, adverb, etc. and to insert it into the middle of words such as abso-furken-lootely. They are delighted: - but the ones headed for Sweden are jealous they will not be able to excercise this skill.

“I've been out of the country now for 3 years (My how time flies etc. etc.) and I have noticed both you and a couple of other posters recently using that "aye" you mentioned. “

Oh see I’ve only been IN the country three years Romany. I remember being teased as a teenager by a boyfriend’s father for saying “aye” all the time. Might just be me... don’t know about the others. Raised wrong I’d say.

Yeah like in the word “say”. Where I am (central coast NSW) they all end their sentences with “but”. “I had fun though but”, “I didn’t like what he said but” “I smashed him but”. They also do this in the deep south of NZ but nowhere else there. I found it weird. No I don’t mean smashing people who offend them – actually yeah that too.

“(Remember how quickly 'sick' and 'wicked' suddenly morphed into good things?)”

Yeah and “player” – That is a complete change of perception based on one word.

It must be hard for your students. Even coming here from NZ (and we don’t get closer than that) I was astounded by people talking about “thongs” – in NZ these are what G-strings are called not Jandels (aka Oz thong).

"p.s. The other day I initiated some of them into the Aussie ability to use the celebrated F-word as a noun, adjective, adverb, etc. and to insert it into the middle of words such as abso-furken-lootely. They are delighted: - but the ones headed for Sweden are jealous they will not be able to exercise this skill."

Swedes not down with it then

Glaswegians use 'but' to end sentences too. As NZ culture has taken a lot from Scottish culture, the connection could be there. Dunedin (Gaelic for Edinburgh) is also in the deep south of NZ, so it looks really possible.

Examples from Glasgow - when learning of the departure of friends -
'Zat yiz aff, well?' - 'Is that you (plural) off?' - note another quaint Wegie affectation of ending the sentence in 'well'.
Then -
'Where are yiz aff tae, but?' - 'Where are you off to?'.

Early Billy Connolly material used Wegie language most of the time.

“Glaswegians use 'but' to end sentences too. As NZ culture has taken a lot from Scottish culture, the connection could be there. Dunedin (Gaelic for Edinburgh) is also in the deep south of NZ, so it looks really possible.

Examples from Glasgow - when learning of the departure of friends -
'Zat yiz aff, well?' - 'Is that you (plural) off?' - note another quaint Wegie affectation of ending the sentence in 'well'.
Then -
'Where are yiz aff tae, but?' - 'Where are you off to?'.”

Hey Austin if you need a tissue just ask dear.

You know when I was at boarding school we spoke to each other in this weird way – smoke would be Smodagodagoke, bath would be bada-adagath. Took us forever to have a conversation but it was because the matrons were always listening through the intercom. I heard most people in institution type places end up with their own secret language. My own kids (says a lot about my household) do the one where like smoke would be mokay and bath would be athbay.

Oh – I’m from deep south originally (Gore), even further south than Dunedin and inland. My Granddad still spoke Scots Gaelic.

I roll my “R’s” – nah the sound man what are you thinking? Didn’t know about the “but” thing though – nah the word man, Austin seriously get your mind out of the gutter.

I never heard of Wegie language before – badly fitting undies?

Jewely, how can I get my mind out of the gutter when you write about 'Rs' an 'buts'? Dare I mention that, in Glasgow, if one wants to ask someone for a spare cigarette, one asks to 'bum a fag'.

If I wanted a tissue, I'd say 'geeza snotrag'.

As for Wegie language and undies - Wegie is short for Glaswegian while Teuchters (Highlanders) don't wear undies - the wear the kilt commando.

Another secret language is the 'egg language' where 'egg' is inserted before every vowel. Eggits queggite seggimple teggo leggearn.

Hi Austin, I haven’t heard” bum a fag” in ages, yeah probably not very PC these days aye, I hadn’t even thought of it in years. How did homos end up being called fags? You don’t think it was from that phrase do ya?

I still call them snotrags, most people haven’t even seen one, and everyone uses tissues these days, probably shocking for the environment.

Had not heard the egg language before… I reckon even my grumpy old matrons back at boarding school would have cottoned on to that one. I went to school down Oamaru, I suspect this is a fully Maori word.

You know what, I have no idea what topic we are in or how much trouble you get in around here for just sneaking away and having a wee random chat. Do you get told on or anything?

Hi Jewelly

There's a good Weegie word for those who tell on you - 'clipe'.

So unless there are clipes on this thread, we are safe.

Some Weegie news on Merlin -
http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Wizard-Weegie--wheeze-.5274753.jp