G'day kettle. Pot calling.

>>One of the reaons your criticism of me is like water off a ducks back is exactly because I happen to know it is founded on pure bigotry and base prejudice rather than actual fact.<<

I've notice that you have started to use the 'b' word a lot lately, Boaz. Often in posts in which you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

There's a word for that too, you know.

And, as ever, the traditional Boaz chuckle.

>>I would possibly respect you IF.. you did some digging...<<

This, from "Mr Research" himself.

Barking, Boaz.

Northern Ireland.

Swedish Pastor.

The list is a long one.

Finally we have it. Boazy wants to ban Waleed Aly from the ABC because he's a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which ran an unsuccesful campaign against a couple of fundamentalist Christian Islamophobes for the vilification of Muslims.

As I recall, the Christian fundies had their right to vilify Muslims vindicated. Now, out of revenge, Boazy wants to gag even moderate Muslims like Waleed Aly.

Now why couldn't Boazy have just explained himself in the context of the thread where he made his hypocritical statement, instead of derailing this one?

Here's some "homework" for you, Boazy: look up the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.

CJ.. you seem to place a rather high level of importance on keeping things in particular threads. I don't really share that view.
I have a lot in my mind which I want to discuss with people at present..and yes..I do jump around a bit, but in this case the only person (possibly Pericles also) who has concerns about that issue is...'you'.

But your take on my motives is not correct.

You used a couple of words which demonstrate your own prejudice and thus far 'bigotry'. (yes.. it's you).

You claimed the pastors wanted freedom to 'vilify', but you have yet to examine whether their basis for CRITICISM which is the correct word, was groundless or not. Remember...you live in your comfy spot in Canberra or wherever..Daniel Scott has had his life on the line from Islamists in Pakistan. He has had first hand experience of the 'Destination' so..when he passes the stations on the way..he knows where it's all heading.
You..simply are not qualified to make assesments of what they said and why from your comfy/atheist digs up there. Actually... heaven forbid..you ARE technically qualified with your anthropological background, but for some reason you just tuck that away in the back paddock and let 'ideology' drive your output.

"Criticism of Islam"= "Islamophobia" when you absolutely know it is not. So this makes you look much worse.
'Unfounded' criticism of Islam IS 'Islamophobia.'

I even pulled Proxy up on his "Islam calls for all infidels to be killed"..now that WOULD be 'Islamophobia' (one of his rare lapses)
See my response to him for the correct situation.

If you had a genuine desire to explore the basis for criticism of Islam, you would join in a discussion of links I provide where up till now I have not even expressed an opinion....I've only asked "Do you see any basis for concern"..and Pelican graciously went a bit further and READ the information.

As I said.. if you read it too, you might see that it's not 'revenge' about Walid Aly but much deeper.

..continued

continued....

My call to ban him, is also an 'object lesson' which might lead to discussion about the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) -56 voting Muslim nations at the UN which is trying to restrict criticism of Islam.(even well founded)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52O5QY20090325

You will note especially the following:

QUOTE
The OIC resolution says "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism" and calls on U.N. member states "to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general .... "

BUILT-IN MAJORITY

Similar unbinding resolutions have been passed since 1999 in the U.N. General Assembly and by the 47-nation Human Rights Council, where Islamic countries and others who support them on the issue have a built-in majority.
UNQUOTE.

The OIC is seeking BINDING resolutions to become part of OUR law.

See how it works CJ ? the issue is much bigger than Walid himself.
Raising awaereness of bad laws and oppressive groups (OIC) involves some strategic actions. Calling for Walid Aly to be banned is just one of them.

Pretty much all of your terminology is dripping with prejudice.

//fundamentalist Christian Islamophobes for the vilification of Muslims.//

They did not win the right to 'vilify' Muslims. The outcome was that they DIDN'T vilify Muslims by what they said and that Justice Higgins had erred in law and procedure.
They won what the law allows "reasonable and in good faith and in the public interest".

Nothing changed, but the APPLICATIONand interpretation of a stupid law by (my opinion) a prejudiced Judge is what was overturned.

JUDICIAL PREJUDICE.. my my how I'd love to go down that path..but another time.

CAN we get back to 'Marxism in the UN' ?

Al
In your first link 'The World Today' the program involves Charitable Trusts not government ownership. It is one possible solution to address housing affordability for the lowest of income earners. It is not indicative of some Marxist plot to own all (currently) privately held land. It would no doubt reduce demand for government owned commission housing.

Collectivism is not always a Marsist conspiracy. We have 'socialised' medicine which works far better, even if imperfect, than private health care systems like the US. We have publicly owned public transport, emergency services, law enforcement and education. A Social Democracy embracing some of the benefits of collectivism within a Capitalist framework is not Marxism.

The only downside referred to in the links, is that the assett is not going to appreciate compared to market values, but that is the point, the Trust is to ensure affordability into the future.

The presence of Trust owned land does not immediately imply a grand conspiracy for a land grab. What other suggestions do you have for housing affordability. I thank the lucky stars that I could raise my children at home when housing prices did not rely on two income (*cough*) 'working families'.

Al, your trying to draw a long bow. Do you imagine that Western democracies like the US and Australia would vote in a candidate advocating control of all privately held land. Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution and there is no threat from Land Trusts. How does it differ from government owned housing for those who are eligible?

Fact is even under our property rights as they stand, governments seem hell bent on widening highways and approving developments to the detriment of current land owners. Sometimes there may be case where the overall public good is vastly outweighed by one person's property standing between change or not. As long as the person is adequately compensated it is not a conspiracy. Yes, we can all find examples where governments have overstepped the mark on dodgy development applications and they should be accountable.

So, because you're affronted that the ICV would dare make a lawful, but ultimately unsuccessful, complaint, you want to gag one of its members from saying anything at all on the ABC?

I know your head's a bit full, but you really should look up that 'hypocrisy' word.

I think that the real reason for your desire to ban popular moderate Muslims like Yusuf Islam or Waleed Aly is that you're terrified that Islam will become accepted as just another religion in Australia. That many Australians admire and respect these people regardless of their religion is an affront to you, so you want them "banned".

They're not following the Islamophobic script, so they must be silenced. Sheer hypocrisy.

I realise that none of this has the slightest relevance to "Human Settlement and the need for Collectivization", but it's you who obstinately refuses to stay on topic for some bizarre reason.

Oh hang on. I think I know the reason.