That's a really profound contribution, Constance.

>>There goes Pericles again, grasping at straws with cultural relativism<<

And quite revealing, too.

The implication is that you prefer not to learn from history, but wish to keep making the same mistakes all over again.

Britain was torn apart by two warring versions of Christianity for over a century. People were hanged without a second thought, simply because they were a) Protestant or b) Catholic.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/log/summary/v007/7.1tarrago.html

Islam appears to be in the throes of the same disease. And once again, innocent citizens are targetted simply because they are either Sunni or Shia.

We in Australia in the twentyfirst century are in fact a great deal more fortunate than the folk of Tudor England, simply because we have a strong legal framework within which we pursue criminals, without checking first which church they go to.

What the vociferous white folks on this thread are advocating is nothing less than the reawakening of religious wars, which in the more politically advanced parts of the world is slowly being eradicated. It still exists of course - even Northern Ireland is not completely cured.

But the key point I was trying to get across is that the difference between being deported for being Muslim, and being kneecapped for being Protestant, is almost non-existent. If we haven't learnt that little lesson from history, then we are in for a very hard time indeed.

Dear o sung wu,

You as always give an interesting perspective, one I contend is baseless but I am happy to pursue it and for the sake of the exercise let's couch it in legal terms.

Your case is that I employed “insulting, offensive, and disparaging language, in order to offend BANJO and others herein, simply because they dare disagree with your somewhat perverted and prejudiced views, is quite deplorable, thus rendering you as an arrogant and imperious individual!”

So what did I actually say about Banjo that could be regarded as “insulting, offensive, and disparaging language”?

Well there was this;

“Oh dear, not another Banjo drum beat. Muslims and sex, sex and Muslims, immigrants and sex, sex and immigrants, sex and multiculturalism, multiculturalism and sex. Hell mate do you have any other tune in that playbook?”

Was it a reasonable assertion? Let us look at the evidence. I submit the following list of Banjo's posted topics over the last 12 months, there were 10 of them and I include a few quotes from him;

Rotherham reveals the price we pay for multiculturalism 28/8/2014 “After 20 years of FGM being illegal not one person has yet faced court, because prosecutors have turned a blind eye for 'cultural considerations'.”

What to do about Aus citizens going to fight in syria? 13/1/2014 “Secondly we need to disallow immigrants from groups that have shown us they cannot/will not integrate and hold our laws and social standards in contempt.”

FECCA wants more alien cultural diversity 12/12/2013 “This is why I am keen to see the laws enforced relating to FGM, forced marriages and polygamy.”

Well done Mr Morrison 16/5/2014 “Having read some of Morrison's views on multiculturalism, I am rather hopeful that MC will be officially discarded this term.”

Woman charged with supporting terrorism 5/5/2014

Qld election should see PUP crash 9/6/2014

How accomodating will Aussies have to becom? 9/4/2014 “So how diverse will we get and what cultural practices will we have to accept? Will FGM, underage marriage, forced marriage and polygamy become lawful activities?”

Cont...

Dear spindoc,

Kindly read my post on page 8 of this discussion.

You should not attribute things to me that I neither
believe, nor have said. That is not a reasoned or
intelligent way to argue. I have always stated that
the reason Australia does not have the problems of
the UK or Europe is that we have an institutional
framework that preserves tolerance and protects order
we can celebrate and enjoy diversity in food, in music,
in theatre, in language, and culture. But we could not
do that without the legal framework which guarantees the
freedom to enjoy our diversity.

To be an Australian, one pledges loyalty to Australia.
One pledges to share democratic beliefs to respect the
rights and liberty of others and to respect the rule of
law.

There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is
the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian
Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't
accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what
it stands for.

We are asking all of our citizens to subscribe to a framework
that can protect the rights and liberties of all. We are very
clear about this. This is not optional.

Terrorists, extremists, fundamentalists, who do not acknowledge
rights and liberties of others need to be made aware that
they know that there is only one law and that it is going
to be enforced whether they acknowledge its legitimacy or
not.

However, as David Irvine, Head of ASIO, has stated - it would
be wrong and unfair -
to blame all Muslims for the actions of Islamists,
who mis-sue their religion for their own agendas.

Cont...

Do we follow UK down the Islamic path? 19/2/2014 “Those that considered there was nothing wrong with the underage marriage of recent times.”

Underage marriage and other alien practices. 8/2/2014 “Below is an article about a man charged with intercourse with an underage girl.”

PM not wanting to discuss issue 30/10/2013 “I also think that those groups that practice forced marriage and FGM should be excluded.”

So a full 90% are directly concerned with Muslim/immigration/terrorism/multiculturalism. The vast majority mention either underaged sex, child brides FGM, forced marriages.

Next I accused Banjo of being xenophobic a condition described as an irrational fear of a foreign group. I put it to you that Banjo is most definitely exhibiting an unhealthy preoccupation with those of the Muslim faith. His embraces instances that occur on the otherside of the globe as having impacted him personally. Note the language of his thread;

“Rotherham reveals the price we pay for multiculturalism”. We are not England, we are Australia. Banjo can not make that distinction. It is irrational behaviour. So even setting aside his predisposition to label all Muslims with the brush of the few I submit Banjo is a classic xenophobe.

So for the record my statements about Banjo hardly gratuitous but rather right on the mark. What I do find curious though is your inclination toward defensiveness, of seeing grave slight when little exists. I don't think you consciously concoct feelings of affront but subconsciously you tend to do just that.

Take for instance this statement from you;

“Then your argument is similarly lamentable, as it has absolutely no basis in fact either ? And your use of the adjective 'demographic' to preface 'lamentable' puzzles me somewhat?”

I was making the point that decrying multiculturalism is a more typical lament from your demographic as in 'white, male, and on the less inviting side of middle age'. You turned 'lament' into 'lamentable' and took offense.

Why?

And why isn't “perverted and prejudiced views” and “arrogant and imperious” from you ““insulting, offensive, and disparaging language”?

Davis Aurini explains why Social Justice is the antithesis of real justice in the most simplistic way possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOp1GOL3skU
I can already tell who's going to benefit from watching this video and who won't even be able to understand it.

The full statement by Australian Muslims…

http://islaminaustralia.com/2014/08/20/muslim-community-denounces-anti-terror-law-proposals/

Notice the preamble, the reference to Allah, the merciful god that delights in torture
http://quran.com/4/56 Strange type of mercy, that.

Comments:
Item1: language of the law is neutral; Muslims are not mentioned, but feel targeted. Funny that Anglicans, Baptists, Atheists, Buddhists don’t feel targeted. No statement from Jehovah witnesses either.

Item2. So Muslims are a race? Oh yes, a caricature is a picture or description in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated. To caricature Muslims as backwards, prone to violence and problematic means such characterizations have a basis in reality, even if not really exaggerated.

Item3. To Muslims, any Islamic threat is first “blown out of all proportion” then just blown up. As to “national debate” and “community consultation”, oh yes, Muslims are known for their democratic institutions and peaceful dialog. HA!

Item4. They reject dividing the Muslim community into ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’. There you have it – the radicals that behead and shoot people in the back are no different from the average Australian Muslim, according to the statement. Do Muslims ever think about what they write?

Item5. Muslims say that they concerned about peace and security. So what about the 50+ countries where Muslims dominate? How about the rights, peace and security for non-Muslim or even Muslims in those countries? Words like tolerance peace and security have no meaning when coming from the mouths of people that oppresses, discriminates and does violence everywhere they dominate.

The fact is that Australian Muslims reject a common position on terror with the rest of the people of the country. This makes sense because if they were against terror, they wouldn’t worship Mohammed, duhhhh.

It is nice to know that Muslims accept what I have always said, that so-called radicals and so-called Muslims are pretty much the same in theory – they both accept the hate and violence in the Quran and they both have no problem with Mohammed’s vicious attacks on his neighbors for 10 years. The only difference is that the radicals practice their beliefs while the moderates make excuses and blame others.