Hi Foxy,

No incitement to violence - well, that's precisely what Brandis is suggesting, no right to incite violence. So that's a bit of a straw-man :)

Where should the limits be drawn ? Of course, nobody can stop anybody else from being a moronic bigot (or a drunkard, or liar or etc. etc.) but clearly, most posters here agree that incitement to violence ('behead all those who ....') is not on. Most of those posters would agree, I'm sure, that incitement to hatred, or to vilify, is also not on. Brandis would agree with you on that too.

At the broader end, it is also agreed by most that the right to free speech includes the right to say or write something which someone might find offensive. Or even insulting.

Maybe it's just me but I find the limit somewhere between those two, the right to insult, yes, but vilification, no. In that space, I am worried about free speech extending to the right to consciously humiliate. With two Aboriginal kids, I'm aware of the damage done by words which are intended to hurt. And they can hurt for life.

If freedom of speech can extend to the right to humiliate someone personally, how does one gauge the speaker's intentions ? Perhaps that is my personal boundary - between unintentional and intentional humiliation. How can one tell the difference ? A smirk, a guffaw, may betray some intention to hurt. But many people are devious enough to cover their 'intentions' with a look of innocence. So it's certainly a very grey area.

But the right to offend and insult ? Go for it.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

Am looking forward to your apologetic re the following:

"Faheem Khalid[edit]
Main article: Faheem Khalid Lodhi
Faheem Khalid Lodhi is an Australian architect accused of an October 2003 plot to bomb the national electricity grid or Sydney defence sites in the cause of violent jihad. He was convicted....June 2006 on terrorism-related offences, namely:
Preparation for terrorist attack, by seeking information for the purpose of constructing explosive devices....and collecting maps of the Sydney electricity supply system and possessing 38 aerial photos of military installations in preparation for terrorist attacks
manuals detailing how to manufacture poisons, detonators....explosives and incendiary devices
....20 years imprisonment....non-parole period of 15 years.
His intended targets....national electricity supply system.... Victoria Barracks....HMAS Penguin naval base....Holsworthy Barracks. Justice Anthony Whealy commented....Lodhi had "the intent of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely violent jihad" to "instill terror into members of the public so that they could never again feel free from the threat of bombing in Australia."

Khaled Cheikho, Moustafa Cheikho, Mohamed Ali Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan and Mohammed Omar Jamal were found guilty of conspiring to commit a terrorist act or acts. They were jailed on 15 February 2010 for terms ranging from 23 to 28 years.

In September 2008, of an original nine defendants, five men including the Muslim cleric, Abdul Nacer Benbrika were convicted of planning a terrorist attack. During the trial, the jury heard evidence of plans to bomb the 2005 AFL Grand Final, 2006 Australian Grand Prix and the Crown Casino, as well as a plot to assassinate then Prime Minister John Howard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia

Joe,

I don't agree, what Brandis is saying to the race haters is, its okay to fill your pockets with stone's but don't throw them, well if you do, just don't hit anyone.
Moronic bigots are of only marginal concern, their thoughts (the little they have) and actions are very much controlled by the intelligent bigots, who might be less in number, but who are a far more dangerous species of bigot. An intelligent bigot will often present as a "reasonable" person, quite often being very condescending towards the minority he targets, often delivering some very nice platitudes "The black man is indeed noble...but!" In his own way Brandis is one of those intelligent bigots. The IB is not always motivated by a simple irrational hatred of others, far from it, he could be motivated by a true belief he is, or his race is, in some way superior to another, or the other race is a perceived genuine threat to him and/or his race and he is motivated by a misguided sense of duty. The majority of bigots on this forum demonstrate evidence of the latter by their very posts.

Dear Is Mise,

My view points were not meant as any sort of "apolgy"
for Muslim extremist behaviour. On the contrary I
thought that I was trying to stimulate further discussion
and presenting other perspectives on this complex issue.
Obviously I've been wasting my time.

I shall leave you to your "fair" and "objective" points
of view.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

However for me it's now run its course.

Take care.

Exit Foxy, left stage.

As you go Foxy, consider all the Irish protests in Sydney in the 1960s and '70s. No violence and no arrests.

The Shooters' protest march in Sydney over Howard's "Laws",
Police estimate, 20,000 marchers; my estimate based on marshals' ground counts and photos that I took from the top of a Government building,
37,000, No arrests and no violence.

I wonder what the difference was between these protesters and those Muslims posted above?