Belly

"Tell me, runner tells us here the greens are violent? how?
Wrestling over the last bottle of expensive plonk?"

At first read, I thought it was you on the plonk, Belly, but then I looked at the time of your post and decided it was a bit early. It then dawned on me that you were referring to the Andrew Bartlett incident. Being a Democrat at the time, this had nothing to do with the Greens.

Yes, I'm interested too to see what Runner's got on these 'violent' Greens! Very little I suspect.

"Last night I watched a TV show , never saw it before gangs of Australia."

I assume this program would have covered bikie gangs and white supremacist gangs. I assume also it was from a reputable source and shown on the ABC or SBS. Otherwise I'd take it with a fair grain of salt if I was you, Belly.

".. saw police butchered in our streets."

Really? 'our' streets, or someone else's?

"Hard to take? maybe but always and forever politicians should listen to the majority or get out of the game."

I doubt very much that a 'majority' of Australians are clamouring for a return to a discriminatory immigration policy. A small vocal minority led on by One Nation maybe, but not the majority.

Belly, you usually have a pretty keen inbuilt BS detector, but it's certainly switched off when it comes to this issue!

Hi 579,

I partly agree with you:

[Translated into standard English] "Loudmouth, You don't read too well, I take it. I know what was said, and that's my opinion. Everybody knows we are talking about the hard-line muslim position."

But it's not just my opinion that one must distinguish between ethnicity, 'race', culture, religion, language, legal rights and lifestyle in order to fix responsibility appropriately.

As for hard-line Islam: as an atheist outsider, I'm confident that there is a very wide spectrum of ideological positions amongst the Muslim population, as there would be in the Christian and Jewish populations. I'm also aware of the Muslim principle of Tekki'ah, of the legitimacy of lying in a good cause: coming from the Left, I've seen plenty of that. Probably even Christians have something similar.

I'm sure that most Muslims wear their Islam comparatively lightly, observing prayer five times a day, fasting over Ramadan, giving alms, aspiring to go to Mecca sooner or later.

But as with other religions, there is certainly a much more hard-line wing and more devout, more literal in their grasp of the koran. One could say, more 'evangelical', if one includes the duty to exterminate non-believers or those who refuse to be converted (as, I suppose, I would be) in order to bring about a world perfectly in accord with Shari'a and the word of Allah.

So the 92 % of Egyptian Muslims who support the stoning of women for adultery give me pause in my enthusiasm for their 'revolution'.

Multiculturalism certainly has limits: in my view, it does not include the right of any group to be intolerant towards any other group or to plot and carry out violent acts - but it also must include, in a democratic country like Australia aspires to be - the full recognition and protection of the rights of all citizens, the equality of women especially, and the active promotion of those rights.

On all these counts, Muslim fundamentalism fails and therefore, in my view, it has no place in Australian society, now or ever.

Jo

Bronwyn, Gday, you have strong opinions,some maybe most I share.
But may this dyslexic old bloke ask that you read the posts, all of them between your last and next.
If we are going to comment surly it should be after doing that at least.
While runner is a target,[he wants to be] that way,an old gentleman said greens are violent here in print Philo.
I found that funny, strange,bizarre comparing them to this subject.
Read in to days Australian a very good reminder of my side of this debate.
Read in the ABC online page a reminder if Keatings words, look again at Howard's but UNDERSTAND those words on this subject, won him elections.
Read Rudd's comments too.
I am impressed with the 9 year old at last being set free to live with his cousins, not bad for a racist red neck.
Bronwyn my best interests are in an ALP government, but I want the voices in the negative to be heard, Labor trys to be the party of middle Australia, but ignores I live in that territory and so do massive amounts of us, and our opinions are not seen in the NEW ALP Policy's on this matter mix yes a positive but tell those fathers who flog children and wives in to agreement with them..

Hi Pericles.. that was a very nice and candid post.

The reason I asked if you "hate" me was because you tend to ascribe that emotion to 'me' in regard to other people.. your choice of words might need a bit of a polish.. as you also said "fear and LOATHING" is something you attribute to me from time to time.. but 'loathing' is a much stronger word than 'hate' to my mind.

So.. (now to the point :) If you don't 'hate' me for what I say, why do you project 'loathing' to me in regard to other people with whom I disagree.. (the Islamic thing)

If I attack a belief system, you tend to say "you fear and loathe" them.. or that I'm stirring up 'fear and loathing'...

My defense of course is that the issues I pick are very well substantiated in fact, but we disagree on that also. I would love to have you as my prosecutor in VCAT or somewhere :) because in that environment you and the judge would be forced to follow the 'Law' and use the principles of intepretation which are recognized world wide in regard to documents.

I would be supremely confident that I could successfully argue each of the points I've raised in the past, and that such argument would be accepted as valid. Of course.. knowing how VCAT works, that might not be sufficient to free me from 'religious vilification' charges, as Debbie Mortimer SC so eloquently said "Truth... is not a defense"

AND.. of course... seeing that in print was one of the major factors in triggering my 'crusade' against the RRT and progressives generally.
I am intending (in the process of) to cost various 'entities' large sums of money in defending actions based on that law.
Fortunately, the coalition has assured me they will replace the Commissioner of the HREOC with a truly 'independant' :) person.
So..it will be win some or lose some.. see how it goes.

Bronwyn I was referring to that particular wine the left is known to drink, in the back of those combi vans on the way to demonstrations.
We ran out of puff, thought we would,not thoughts not ideas not concerns,but puff yes.
Bet nearly every poster wanted to say more.
To tell more about real life events.
We,even those who oppose it the most, are fenced in by PC,and respect for OLO/GY no doubt at all both could be damaged if we said it like some of us think.
I am not drifting away from LABOR never, current leadership is moving away from a reality it must learn, we are not happy with some things they do.
I am in average health hope maybe I will get another ten years but would love to see the day,it will come,when the people all over the world, hold todays PC owners who blindly say we who see differences and things to be aware of are wrong.
Humanity's wish to live together in peace while good can not come about by one side being both blind and stupid.
WHY do we teach evolution then chant mindlessly about the right to religious freedom?, a freedom that demands death?

Hi Belly,

When you write: "WHY do we teach evolution then chant mindlessly about the right to religious freedom?, a freedom that demands death?" you are touching on a basic right in a democratic society, the right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression. I don't know so much about the 'mindlessly' bit, but you open up an interesting line of discussion when you mention "religious freedom .... a freedom that demands death".

I am presuming that you would differentiate between the 'religious' freedom for anybody to promote their beliefs, propagandise, knock on people's doors, run radio programs, etc., and the bogus 'freedom' to incite violence and hatred against unbelievers ? i.e. to go beyond the legitimate limits of free speech ?

This raises the old problem for miulticulturalists and relativists: should we tolerate the intolerant ? Should we allow freedom of speech to those who use it but who would abolish it at the first opportunity, or so it may seem on past experience ?

In my view, of course objectionable views must be allowed, provided they do not drift over into incitement to violence, abridgement of others' rights, or contempt. Freedom of speech must extend to offensive remarks, but offense cannot be allowed to flow over to incitement.

Joe