What are the limits of free speech.

Would an Australian kindergarten be permitted to put on a show like this?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25654_YouTube_Deletes_Copy_of_Hamas_Video&only

"Children in Gaza perform a monstrous play, dressed as suicide bombers and terrorists, waving knives and guns, in front of a crowd of doting parents."

Is this free speech or child abuse?

Wonder why the hamas supporter who apparently posted it on youtube took it down.

CJ... I can't independantly support the claim other than the report contained in "Jihadwatch" which in turn quotes Steven Emmersons book, which presumably refers in a footnote to a newspaper article.

But all I REALLY need to support my claim about him stirring up Muslims to slaughter Jews (and Christians) is this.

1/ Bray is of the Wahhabi mould.(as yet this is only based on various reports, mostly tracable back to Emmersons book) Bray is quoted as lauding the founder of the Wahabi Muslim Brotherhood.

2/ Quran 9:30 calls for "May Allah destroy them" (Christians and Jews)

3/ The Wahabbist view of Surah 9 is clearly spelt out here.
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm
Which is a Wahabi site, containing this:

Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment." (33:57).

CONCLUSION based on these facts.

Anyone who holds a literal and traditional interpretation of the Quran will be promoting values aimed at the destruction of Jews and Christians in THIS world and the next. This includes Bray.

Boaz,

Your last post shows how little you know and shows a clear "cut and paste" attempt to promote your agenda. Wahabism and Muslim brotherhood are opposite side of the spectrum and describing one person as both reveals your real intent.

The core issue here is that your real agenda is not Australia's national interest. Rather it is the interest of Israel. Therefore, anyone who speaks out against Israeli's genocide, occupation and attrocities is laballed as either an anti-semite or, if a muslim, a terrorist or fundamentilist and if a Jew become a self-hating Jew.

Mr Justice, thank you for pointing that out.. the difference between Wahabi and Brotherhood.

Actually, the difference is minor. The Brotherhood emphasises a more 'sufi' approach, and the Wahabi's emphasise the 'Purity' of orignal Islam approach, but the brotherhood and Wahabi movements both promote a much stricter and fundamentalist view of Islam than what today is conveniently described by secular Westerners as 'mainsteam/moderate' Islam.

According to Said Qutb leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi-l-Tariq

"The Muslim world had ceased to be and reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as Jahiliyya, because of the lack of sharia law. All non-Islamic states are thus illegitimate, including that of his native land Egypt"

and

"The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard to fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad"

Bray praises Hassan Al Bannah, and this is what he MUST know of the organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna

As the society (Muslim Brotherhood) expanded during the 1930s, it quickly changed from a movement for spiritual and moral reform into an organization directly active on the Egyptian political scene. Concurrent with that transformation, radical tendencies asserted themselves within the organization. A "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) was formed that engineered a series of assassinations of enemies of the brotherhood.

What parallels are there between the Brotherhood then..and Bray now ?

Bray makes sure he is photographed handing out 'gifts to the poor'.
But see what happened to the Brotherhood when it became strong ?

How many times, Boaz, how many times?

>>Bray praises Hassan Al Bannah, and this is what he MUST know of the organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna<<

And what is the first thing you see when you open this page?

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed."

Which is strong Wikipedia-talk for unreliable.

Follow the link it suggests, to the talk page. You will see a liberal sprinkling of "POV" accusations, which is wiki-talk for "point of view", meaning, quite simply, that it is not the even-handed analysis that one expects from a true encyclopaedia, but just some guy's opinion. There is also a "this article contains gross inaccuracies" comment, which is also a bit of a clue.

This does not deter you from promoting the contents as "evidence", Boaz, but it should. You can say that your opinion is supported by someone else's opinion, but you should not promote suspect articles as being somehow factual.

Wikipedia is an amazing resource. But like everything else on the Internet, its articles should not be used on their own to "prove" a point, especially when the Wikipedia item itself is so heavily qualified. It is careless usage like this that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Thanks Pericles, as ever. Your patience in responding to Boazy's interminable hate-mongering is something to which I can only aspire. Personally, I have to bite my digital tongue too frequently for me to respond to his asinine pontifications very often.

However, I agree that it's important to stay on his case, since he seems indefatigable in his prosecution of anti-Islamic fervour. In fact, I think he's a kind of Christian Hilali (albeit with even less support from his sectarian cohorts). We can always rely on Boazy to make some outrageous claim, only to try and justify it retrospectively by reference to some Biblical or Quranic fiction. When pressed on the more idiotic aspects of this kind of argument, he usually scuttles away, only to reappear on yet another OLO thread.

Take this: "CJ... I can't independantly support the claim other than the report contained in "Jihadwatch" which in turn quotes Steven Emmersons book, which presumably refers in a footnote to a newspaper article."

What utter nonsense! Boazy's just made yet another wild claim (in this case that Bray supposedly advocates the extermination of Jews), on the basis of a very tenuous Chinese whisper. This is of course, his pattern - a la his infamous Virginia Tech insinuation, or his demonstratedly false claims about various statements from Bob Brown, etc etc etc.

I don't bother responding to Boazy's fantasies very often lately, but I thought that Pericles' able and steadfast rebuttal could do with some support. I don't agree with Pericles on everything, but with respect to the threats increasingly presented to Australian social and cultural life by religious nutters of various persuasions, I agree with everything he's written here on the subject.

Let's send the Muslim, Christian, and whatever other fundies back under their rocks where they belong.