Hi Foxy,

'Afghan' was a term for all traders and cameleers from what is now Pakistan and India, and included Hindus and Sikhs as well as what we might now call moderate Muslims. Religion was not really much of an issue and in any case - at least here in SA - most 'Afghans' married Aboriginal women without much regard to conversion or adherence to strict Islamic principles. I think, in the harsh conditions of the Inland, they were clearly cameleers and working men first and Muslims etc., a distant second.

Is Mise,

So that's the spectrum of approaches to free speech - permissible at one extreme, punishable by beheading at the other ?

And the opportunists of the pseudo-Left will hesitate, ask themselves "What would the US [or Abbott] do ?" and choose the other extreme.

Is that where we're heading ? Foxy ? Do you have a view on this ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Is Mise,

Thank You for the links.

I was already familiar with these events,

Here's a link for you to place another perspective
on the story. I watched this interview on
Lateline - it's worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3592170.htm

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

As one of the guests on Lateling stated:

"If we're going to defend freedom of speech then we should
apply it to people, as long as there's no incitement of
violence or hatred..."

People have a right to protest. They do not have a
right to incite violence or hatred or anything else
that harms others. And again I repeat what I've stated
over and over again in this discussion:

Individual Australians are free and equal and should be
treated with dignity and respect. They enjoy basic
freedoms - such as freedom of belief and speech, religion,
peaceful assembly and association - subject to the law
and as long as one person's freedoms do not harm others.

We reject the use of violence, intimidation, and
humiliation as ways to settle conflict in our society.

I trust this clarifies things for you.

Cheers.

Foxy,
No "we" don't reject the use of force in dispute resolution in this country, the anti discrimination laws, like all laws are an exercise in the use of force.
The use of force, coercion and intimidation are the standard methods of dispute resolution in all societies in the world bar the imaginary world inhabited by folk such as yourself.
Example:
If you park your car in contravention of local bylaws and then refuse to comply with the demands for compensation by the responsible authority ultimately you'll have process servers and uniformed goons on your doorstep making demands and threatening punishments.
The use of force, coercion and intimidation is just as valid and just as fundamental to the orderly operation of society as are good manners and thoughtful debate.
Face facts some people cannot be reasoned with, they need to be treated roughly and stomped upon as a first step to ensure that they behave or don't get in other people's way.
Example:
I spotted two people parked in a car outside my house the other week injecting drugs, then one of them went into my neighbour's yard and was skulking about, probably looking for a tap to get water. I went out and told them in a level tone that they had to leave, one of them started to object so I lunged forward, pounded my fist on the roof of their car and screamed MOVE! DO IT! NOW!, they went all bug eyed and quickly departed. If I'd tried to reason with them I'd not only have been wasting my time they'd have been left under the impression that people in this street were weak or unconcerned about criminal activity.

Dear Is Mise and Joe (Loudmouth),

Here's a few thoughts from Prof. James Jupp,
Australia's leading authority on immigration.
He tells us that:

"Globalisation, like economic rationalism and
multiculturalism, has been given many
meanings over the past decades. To some it
indicates that means of communication are now
so sophisticated that a global village has been
created. One implication of that for
Australian immigration policy is that nothing done
here at the ends of the earth can remain immunc
from instant international comment."

"The importance of this was already plain when the
White Australia policy was being wound down.
Neighbours and business partners in Asian independent
states would not tolerate an exclusion policy based so
obviously on ideas of racial inferiority and
incompatability."

"While this lesson did sink in at the official level, it
was slower to gain acceptance in the public arena."

Now decades later some are still arguing that Australia
should limit or exclude Muslim immigrants.

Jupp tells us that, "As a neighbour of Indonesia, the
world's largest Muslim state, a defence partner of Malaysia,
a seller of cars and live sheep to Saudi Arabia, a seller
of wheat to Egypt, and separated from Europe by a swathe
of Muslim societies, Australia can scarcely heed calls
to restrict its Muslim intake."

Exclusion based on race or religion is simply not
practicable in a globalising world.

As Jupp says, "Within the global communications village,
Australia has to learn that it can't implement a
rigorous policy of asylum-seeker detention without this
being immediately criticised around the world."

Attempts to present Australia as a tolerant and
welcoming society which had featured in official
propaganda for decades, is now being brought into question.

As Jupp points out, "Globalisation does not simply mean
free access to information and to markets. It also means
acting in the full glare of media attention, from which
Australia has previously been fairly immune because of its
distance from major centres of newsworthy stories."

Not any more.

Foxy my sweet, who gives a damn about being criticized around the world, Putin certainly doesn't, & he is getting exactly what he wants.

The only people who would criticize us would be those in on the UN con trick of weakening the west, & bleeding hearts. [Sorry, but if the cap fits].

We are only joining the rest of the west, who are suffering under this influx of undesirable bludgers.

Try sending these people to Japan, Malaysia, or any newly developed country, & see what they get.

Foxy, excellent post once again. YEBIGA there is much about your posts to which I agree, I do tend to be a little bit more circumspect in that somewhere along the line I came to the realisation there is some good in capitalism, if it’s nothing more than the entrepreneurial skills capitalists bring, naturally I also see a whole lot of bad as well, but there is some good to come of capitalism.
On my report card for Australia I give our mixed system a "D", under Rudd/Gillard it was a "C minus" but the bully Abbott in a short time has lowered the mark to a "D". I see little difference between Labor and Liberal governments, more concerned with emphasis that any meaningful structural changes in society. I liken the pair to a car, whither the car turns to the left or turns to the right it’s still a car. I suppose some could argue that as a rich society, we can afford many of the excesses of Capitalism, such as vast amounts of unearned wealth flowing into the hands of mining billionaires etc, but as long as the vast majority are satisfied then there will be little desire for any substantive change. I think communism can be seen as a necessity for poor people and capitalism a luxury for rich people, for the rest of us, something in between will be good enough.
It might be cynical on my part, but I have never believed that because we collectively trot off every few years, and spend half hour on a Saturday going down to the local school and voting, that if that democratic decision does not suit the powers that ultimately control society, they would meekly accept it, with a “Oh well, the people have spoken, and democratically voted in the Communists, we’ll just have to shut up shop and move on, oh dear!