CJ Morgan forgets the estimated 50 million children killed by their mothers in America alone since Roe v Wade.
But in terms of sheer numbers he is correct.
The 50 million killed by their mothers pales into relative insignificance compared to the estimated 270 million killed by men in the name of Allah.
Arguably, however, killing your own flesh and blood is more heinous than killing strangers so maybe we should employ a weighting factor in an attempt to compare the horror of it all.
This would of course be complicated by the fact that we do not know how many of the 270 million killed by the religion of peace were intrafamily honour killings.
Should we apply the same weighting factor to Islamic fathers who kill their daughters who have shamed the family as we do to mothers who kill their children in utero?
This is further complicated by the fact that under Islam a woman's life is worth less than a man's.
Futhermore, under shariah law an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's so that we would have to separate internecine killings and apply a different weighting factor.

Out of here, suzeonline.

Wheighing factors, Can't you come up with more specific conclusions.
Some religions are not meant to exist, they are out of hand.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone come under the bone banner.
You may say there are a lot of different riligions in the world.
Most are tollerant, to each other.
There is a fly in the pie, and i see no other resolution than, strong measures to combat it.
Not even hard line communists have come up with these tactics, and to be supported by various govt; of the same faith is very intolerable.

Hey Seano, I sure do want to remain colleagues with as many people on this site as I can, including you!
I must admit I do find it hard at times to express myself with tongue in cheek on these pages- which I was actually trying to do about more women in Government and religious authority.

As is it, I have no problems communicating with the male gender as a whole, and do really enjoy male company.
What I don't like are women haters and anti-feminist men, who dislike all women because of the actions of a few. I'm not keen on man haters either, for the same reasons.

I too believe it is better to work together to solve this terrorism problem the world has, and if that means asking the women in some male-dominated religions and societies to stand up for themselves, then I make no apologies for my beliefs.

Dear Q&A,

An interesting topic.

I am a complete layperson so the following is idle musing.

There are three elements to the initial post. The first is the title, it was factual, so taken on its own I'm assuming there would be no issue.

The second is the statement “There are now too many muslims in australia which will end up dangerous.”. Once again by itself the statement is more an opinion but combined with the title is where the problem starts.

If the writer is saying, and I think he is, his proof of Australia potentially becoming more dangerous are the actions of what may turn out to be a psychotic individual, the shooter in Texas, then he must be able to show that Muslims are more predisposed to psychotic episodes. If not, and remembering I'm no expert, then I think it may well be actionable under racial vilification laws.

His third and fourth statements about the Tamil refugees are the clincher. Again by themselves valid opinion for one to hold but in combination with the previous statement and title the inferences are, I feel, quite problematic.

The argument seems to goes; the gunman in Texas was a Muslim, therefore greater Muslim numbers will make Australia more dangerous, therefore the Tamil refugees, who, the writer claims are not really refugees, should be taken elsewhere, not Australia.

But the simple fact is that Tamils are Christian or Hindu not Muslim and I would have thought linking them to the Texas shooter was actionable but I'm certainly not sure.

From the Australian Human Rights Commission site;

it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

Cont...

Cont...

There are three essential components of this unlawful conduct:
1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the group against whom it is directed.

I think all are met in this instance.

However under exemptions comes “Also excepted are academic and scientific works and debates or comments on matters of public interest.” but this is only if the person can be shown to have “acted reasonably and in good faith”.

You are correct about “Only an 'aggrieved person' may lodge a complaint” but that person may be any Tamil member currently living in Australia.

There have not been a lot of internet related cases in Australia but in Jones v Tobin Tobin's Holocaust denial website Federal Court Justice Branson stated she was "satisfied that it is more probable than not that the material would engender in Jewish Australians a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively".

The other avenue an aggrieved individual might take is civil or criminal defamation usually at a state level.

From the EFA website;

“Civil liability arises from publications likely to harm a person's reputation and penalties are monetary.”

“Criminal liability arises from publications that affect the community, such as those that have a tendency to endanger the public peace, and penalties in most jurisdictions include imprisonment. Generally, proceedings for criminal defamation are commenced by law enforcement authorities. (In most jurisdictions, a private prosecution concerning criminal defamation requires the prior consent of, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, or a court order.) “

I feel if the second contention about the Tamils were in a separate paragraph then it might be argued that a separate non-linked statement was being made. As that was not the case here that argument might be harder to sustain.

All idle speculation of course.

My last comment was, of course, tongue in cheek. However, it seems that suzeonline's response was spot-on.

Dear oh dear...

My real point was that all these nutters who go on shooting rampages seem to be men, so why single out this one's religion as the root cause? Indeed, I think that Muslims would only constitute a small minority of the perpetrators of this kind of crime.

Religion may itself be a factor in the twisted motivations for such acts, but there are obviously other triggers that send these guys over the edge.