Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (28)
The likes of Islam realist Robert Spencer are no longer voices in the wilderness. At last someone in the media mainstream has got it. I am talking about Andrew Bolt who last Monday evening (January 8) played a number of (actual not bogus) hate speeches directed at Jews by Sydney Muslim clerics. Bolt correctly pointed out that the assorted clerics were all quoting from the Koran or other Islamic scripture. Maybe Islam is the problem, he mooted; a little sheepishly maybe, but he put it out there with rare and admirable courage. Still, even if Islam is the problem, what about putting a stop to the hate speech itself? Are there no laws? Yes there are.
On federal level we have the infamous Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This section of the Act encompasses “offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or racial origin.”
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Jews are a group of people. An ethnoreligious grouping I suppose is a close enough description. Saying publicly that a specific grouping of people, in this case Jews, are monstrous, bloodthirsty and vengeful; are descended from apes and pigs; and who, in the lasts days, will be betrayed by trees and stones into revealing their whereabouts so that that can be killed, would seem to fall foul of the Act.
Call me oversensitive, but I think being called the progeny of apes and pigs adequately jumps the hurdle of being all three of insulting, offensive and humiliating. And to talk about people being bloodthirsty etc., juxtaposed with commentary about them being killed in the last days, might be construed as idle talk if the audience didn’t count among them those brought up to hate Jews. As it is, if I were Jewish I would most certainly be intimidated. It is without a doubt intimidating and therefore also falls foul of the Act.
This isn’t a close-run thing. We have unadulterated, completely un-Australian, unlawful hate being spewed in our very midst. We have an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament which prohibits such behaviour and no yet enforcement. What the heck is going on? I’d like to suggest that what’s going on is Islamophobia-phobia. That is, giving a free pass to, or otherwise pussyfooting around, Muslim hate speakers for fear of being accused of Islamophobia. When you think about, it’s quite a propaganda feat to preach hate while badging those who object as being hateful. But that’s where we are. The multicultural melancholia of immiscible values.
Now, let me take a big step back. The law isn’t being enforced; that is, to be clear, when it applies to Muslims. However, should there be such a law in the first place? I think not. Section 18C is a bad law which can be easily misused to inhibit free speech. As George Brandis so rightly said, “people have a right to be bigots.” These Muslim clerics are simply making fools of themselves. Ridicule is the best counter. Otherwise, deporting any of them who are not Australian citizens is a great idea if the woke courts would ever allow it. And there is of course another problem in enforcing the law, which I referred to at the start.
The Muslim hate speakers are talking from their sacred books – the Koran (the very words of Allah) and the Hadith (the sayings and doings of Mohammed). They’re not making stuff up. It’s Islam. Islam is not a proscribed organisation or theology. So what do we expect? Can you prevent Muslim clerics from quoting from their scripture which is not banned like, say, Lady Chatterley’s Lover in the 1950s. I don’t think so.
Here is some of it, alluding to Jews:
(5:60) Then say to them: ‘Shall I tell you about those whose retribution with Allah is even worse? They are the ones whom Allah has cursed, and who incurred His wrath and some of whom were changed into apes and swine, and who served the false deities. (Ala-Maududi version)
(2:65) And you know the case of those of you who broke the Sabbath,[82] how We said to them: “Become apes, despised and hated.”
(7:166) And when they persisted in pursuing that which had been forbidden We said: ‘Become despised apes.
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. — Hadith reported by al-Bukhari
You only have to look at these passages and others equally objectionable and prescriptive (e.g., look up 8:12) to understand Churchill’s observation[i] of Islam that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” At the same time, we can’t make it illegal for people to quote their scripture; even Israel Folau or to quote Winston Churchill, for that matter. What does that mean? It means 18C should be dumped.
You might say ‘but what about the safety of Australia’s Jewish community?’ Enforcing 18C is not going to help. The hate is there and will simply go underground. What might possibly help is far heavier penalties for those physically assaulting others, or directly threatening to do so, when the motivation for the assault, actual or threatened, is the race, ethnicity or religion of the victim; apropos the United States. I don’t know what else can be done in a free society.
[i] Sir Winston Churchill; The River War, first edition, Volume II, 1899, pages 248-250.
We don’t live in a free society sadly. It’s even becoming illegal to raise your arm at the wrong angle in public. Ridiculous. And you want to harmonise our laws with Britain and the US to enable an arbitrary ‘hate crime’ category? Such laws are to be used preferentially against White people. It would be better to have legislation that removes religious recognition for religions which advocate violence or celebrate violence done against others.
Ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous to ban the nazi salute in public? Is it not a repulsive affront to the memory of all the Australians who suffered and died fighting nazism? To the victims of those preposterous, murderous goons you admire so much?
Ineffective to ban it perhaps, and (in principle) perhaps people should be allowed to make fools of themselves, but “ridiculous”?
Why on earth are you so exercised about it anyway?
Sindri, banning hand-signs/flags/symbols is ridiculous because we are supposed to be a free nation of free people. Free people do not abide censorship and do not need the government to protect them from scary hand-signs.
Why not ban the “OK” sign as well? After all that has been co-opted by the alt-right hasn’t it?
Why not ban the hammer and sickle flag, or Che Guevara T-Shirts? There were more innocent deaths under communism than under the nazis after all.
Why not ban the eureka flag? Political violence and stand-over tactics are committed by trade unions under this flag all the time.
Does anyone here seriously want a government official decided for them what symbols they are allowed to see, or what hand-signs they are allowed to make? A hand-sign does me no harm, and the things that might do me harm (inciting to violence, conspiracy to commit violence, actual violence) are already illegal.
If you want a pragmatic rather than a principled reason to not ban hand-signs– do you want your actual nazis (the few that we have) easily identifiable, or do you want them going underground? Banning their hand-signs/flags won’t stop them gathering, it will just make them harder to spot. Also your insinuation that being “exercised” about such censorship implies that something is amiss with the complainer is unbecoming.
I remember the Nazi salute used frequently in my primary school. The teacher would ask a question of the class, and all the keen-beans would enthusiastically throw their arms into the air at a 30 to 60 degree angle seeking to incite the teacher to ask them for their answer.
Sorry, officer, its not a Nazi salute. Its a Roman one, Ave Imperator!
That would make for a hilarious court transcript
Tom: I have a grudging, old-fashioned view in favour free speech, no matter how rancid the speech or stupid the speaker. I wasn’t suggesting that there should be a legislative ban. However, with family members who fought fascism in several theatres of WW2, and suffered appallingly for it, I find the idea of rehabilitating the nazis, which the first poster repeatedly pushes on this site, disgusting, and I can entirely understand the opposing point of view when it comes to banning nazi symbols and gestures. I certainly don’t think that point of view is “ridiculous”.
As to implying that something is amiss with the first poster (“David Isaac”), it was clumsy of me only to imply it.
No ‘Sindri’. What I have repeatedly emphasized is the absence of freedom of speech in this country and even more so in Europe. It is you who chooses to interpret it with a “what he’s saying is” that involves me being a ‘Nazi’. The primary issue which cannot be spoken about honestly is the replacement of European peoples in every country where they were until very recently supermajorities. An unbrainwashed populace would never have accepted this but decades of cultural and moral degredation combined with anti-Western propaganda in schools, films, books, electronic media and academia have had their effect.
.
Even here on the right wing fringe of the established media this question of supreme importance to Western civilization is not tackled head on. Why? Presumably because it is of paramount importance that it should not be.
You have expressed admiration for Hitler, you have an obsession about Jews controlling everything, and you predictably deny the holocaust. And for some bizarre reason you give yourself a Jewish screen name. Don’t try to weasel out.
This is just more of the same misrepresentation.
Sindri, putting aside what appears to be our common view that such a ban is wrong in principle, the ridiculousness of it, for me, comes from the fact that the state is presuming to tell citizens what positions they can and can’t put their arms in. This strikes me as highly ridiculous not to mention an extremely petty and granular form of tyranny. It scares me because a state that presumes to control citizens on such a petty and granular level is clearly completely out of touch with the value of individual sovereignty and is happy to steamroll it blindly.
Sorry Sindri , I’m with D I on this one , How far are we willing to go to not offend anyone ? Fines or jail time for (to me) the repulsive middle finger in public to anyone ? Even the thumbs up sign is apparently racist to some , as is the Ok sign . where does it end because you know there are people out there , almost exclusively on the left who will run to the authorities . Banning the Nazi salute is specifically aimed at white folk , all others get a free pass , It just makes them look stupid and desperate – doesn’t help our conservative cause either , but the right to offend must exist , and no surprise that Victoria is the one to ban it , their totalitarian zeal has no end . Perhaps a white male looking at his watch while a woman is speaking may soon be on the table .I for one don’t want my every gesture in public scrutinised by Orwell’s cameras or though police .
jm, I certainly don’t think there is a right not to be offended. I think that rancid views , eg support for nazism, should not be the subject of legislative banning. I suppose my point here was that I can see the point of view of those who would ban nazi symbols, given our history. I didn’t express myself very clearly.
Fair enough , though it’s a fine line eh ?
Yep
The way to eliminate section 18C, which is an affront to freedom, is to enforce it against people who would themselves otherwise call it in aid.
Until those who presently hide behind it experience its pernicious consequences and complain about the section to those in power, no government will ever be sufficiently emboldened to repeal the section.
Does not 18C need someone to make a complaint to the HRC? So any Jewish organization would be well placed to do so, one would think. One point Abbot made when he resiled from the promise to repeal 18C was the concern of groups within the community. I would think perhaps some Jewish groups may have been concerned. Fair enough. But I’d now like to see some action. OTOH, I think 18C should go completely, We have laws against the egregious offenses of incitement and intimidation, do we not? That is all we need.
Peter the only real solution is for our law to acknowledge the Bible as its sole source of ultimate determinacy. Any other attempt to resolve these conundrums becomes circular, illogical, and self defeating.
Not only Jews who are the targets but non believers. Cops are loathe to pursue because of the often violent backlash from emboldened muslims if they are legally pursued. Protected group who do not agree with much of Western legalities.
Listening to some of those muftis relishing with venom as they quote from their Holy books is frightening. Their brainwashed followers certainly do not regard them as making fools of themselves and yes 18C can inhibit free speech, but whilst it is on the books it should be used to prosecute what is really hate speech. e.g. Gas the Jews. Defamation can cause harm, curbs free speech, yet we accept it.
Generally we don’t see Christians enacting the violent verses in the bible. All religions are not the same and Islam has been predictable for the last 1500 years.
“Cops are loathe to pursue because of the often violent backlash from emboldened muslims if they are legally pursued”
Yes. That is the outcome from the mis-named Cronulla riots and ensuing nasty incidents. Tony Thomas’ recent articles here tracked this perfectly.
As previously said: Lakemba 10 18C 0 Game, set, match
I would like to test the tolerance for disgusting references to the religious group of Islam; the only obstacle I have is that there are no suitably hateful texts from other religions which can be quoted to do so, as does the Koran.
Peter, just to point out that 18C is a purely civil provision. It doesn’t create a criminal offence and you can’t be prosecuted for a breach of it. Civil proceedings have to be brought by someone, as happened to Andrew Bolt.
What one may well ask is whether the AHRC is agitating the issue, and if not why not. It’s not shy about making a fuss when it feels like it – Johanne Leake, for example.
Bill Leak, of course.
Section 18C was an example of Tony Abbott’s loss of nerve. The details are hazy in my recollection but it was something about he proposed getting rid of 18C but the imams protested that they would have to stop their hate speech if 18C went so Abbott backed off. However he did flag he was doing so in the context of asking imams to commit to voluntarily refrain from hate speech. The imams refused and told him to drop dead. Did Abbott say Ok, your choice, we will proceed to repeal 18C. Nope. He rolled over like a puppy submitting to the top dog. As an aside Abott’s assumption that announcements by various imams or any muslim condeming terrorism as being un-islamic pointed to his wilful profound ignorance of terror being grounded in Islamic doctrine per se, along with all the other Islam facilitators since Fraser invited the Lebanese to invade Australia.
I fully agree with you, but the current invasion is Hindu and communist-indoctrinated Chinese. It’s about to become African, although given their level of representation in advertising one would think they were already here.
Yes David, they are overrepresented in two things ; TV ads and crime. The pointless ,useless news reports of so many violent home invasions, car-jackings, or mayhem on the streets involving ” teens” or “youths” where race could be mentioned bur is not is irresponsible at the minimum. Our politicians have set the table for permanent anarchy in what was once a peaceful society.
I have the impression that the reason for the adverse rap Jews get in the Quran is due to Jews not quite taking seriously big M’s claim to be the last prophet. Naturally the big A in the sky gave the big M a revelation that was adverse to the safety of Jews.
Ridicule is an option until someone tracks you down and saws your head off for the perception of blasphemy. We’ve planted the seeds of war in Australia – as Tony recently showed with the race riots. Australians are broadly unaware of conflict at home, but you’ve got imports who have only known war and violence in their home countries for generations! They’ve got more practice and a stronger sense of cultural and racial identity than the easy-going laid back folks, or the genuine people who want to come to Australia to contribute to the country (I feel these are a minority though!).
What, prosecute mussies for hatred? Labor went to a lot of our expense to import them for their voting block. Not to mention the welfare industry.