otb,

I read quite a variety of sources and chose the ones
I thought appropriate in response to your earlier
post. I do not tell you how to post and what to
include or leave out and it would be greatly
appreciated if you would return that courtesy.

Seeing as you seem to want to continue to discuss
ritual slaughter in this country - start your own
thread on this subject and you can add whatever you
like to your posts that in your opinion are very important.

I made it quite clear that - ritual slaughter is a
controversial issue
in this country and is still being investigated by
various authorities. We shall have to wait and see where
it all ends. Laws are passed by Parliament - and it would
help greatly if they were consisted - but when vested
interests are concerned and money is involved as well
as gaining the support of voters - it is not always an
easy task as we all well know. I am all for the humane
killing of animals - but I do not pass the laws in this
country. If you feel as strongly as I do on this subject
try contacting your local MP of the Federal MP - who may
be able to help you do something.

Cheers.

That is just a blow off, Foxy.

It suited your forever positive slant on multiculturalism, on Islam in particular it seems, to clip a section of the article posted by Animals Australia, omitting the header and significant sections that were at odds with what you were saying, and then not citing your source.

You leave the impression that you set out to mislead and now you are only compounding that deficiency.

Yuyutsu wrote;

“Those uninvited letters to the families of the deceased was a form of harassment, not of free speech.”

Shadow minister wrote;

“However distasteful the comments of the "Sheikh", I would support his right to state them in public, and the right of the public to ignore him. However, the moment he begins deliberately to target people with offensive letters, he commits a crime that is unrelated to free speech.”

And Foxy wrote;

“The case of the man who wrote those letters to
the families of deceased soldiers violates their
right to privacy and their right to maintain their
good reputation. It was not a violation of free
speech - but as Yuyutsu pointed out - it was
personal harrassment.”

Then we have a different version to what constitutes free speech and I would say your stance would be foreign to citizens of that bastion of free speech the US. There the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the private funerals of soldiers killed in action holding up signs saying things like “Pray for more dead soldiers”. Though many Americans found their actions thoroughly despicable and demeaning to those who lost their lives defending their country they are still permitted to stage their pickets although restrictions on the distance they must maintain have been introduced.

A number of pretty hard-arsed bikie gangs took deep exception to the actions of the WBC so what did they do? They lined up in front of those holding placards with large American flags to block the view of them from the families. The reason they did this instead of dispensing rough justice was largely because of their belief in the right of free speech.

The letters the so called 'Sheikh' sent the families of Australian families were incredibly mild by comparison. You might want to slip hairs about what constitutes a public vs a private protest but these were most certainly private funerals in the States.

You have to agree that your determination on what constitutes free speech is a personal rather than an absolute appraisal.

Dear SteeleRedux,

<<The letters the so called 'Sheikh' sent the families of Australian families were incredibly mild by comparison.>>

It makes no difference: if I write "Hello, how are you, have a nice day" to someone whom I know doesn't want to receive my communications, then it is harassment just the same, which is not on!

There should be no "right" to speak AT someone who doesn't want to listen.

Overall, free speech is not the greatest and most important freedom - people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they do not hurt others [without their consent] - emitting sounds from the mouth (or pen or keyboard) is just a specific case thereof and should not receive special treatment.

SR,

You are still pursuing that red herring. You need to differentiate the message from the method of sending it.

Using placards in a public area is simply expressing an opinion, no matter how vile, and free speech does not protect them from the actions of angry citizens. However, one can be prosecuted if one uses other methods.

If for example I used keys to scratch "vote abbott" on your car, my subsequent prosecution would have little to do with the sentiment expressed. Similarly, sending hate mail to grieving parents will lead to prosecution not related to free speech, but rather the abuse of the mail service.

If at some stage you manage to grasp this simple concept, then perhaps you can focus your intellect at section 18c that forbids all forms of speech that might be interpreted to offend anyone on the basis of race.

SM: at section 18c that forbids all forms of speech that might be interpreted to offend anyone on the basis of race.

So do you recon I could get an Aboriginal charged un the Act if he insults me by calling me a "Fuc#3n White B@&t@rd? I think not. Would I be charged for doing insulting him likewise? I think so.

Would a Feminist be charged under the Act for suggesting that I was a Violent Rapist because I'm a man. I think not. Would I be charged for ridiculing a feminist in print. I think so.

It's been explained to me that "White Anglo-Saxon Men" have "Power," the others don't. What ever that means. That's why they don't get charged.

So much for free speech & 18c of the Act. Ay.