Two articles on freedom

The Australian has two articles today that are must reading.

First an excellent piece by Alan RM Jones chastising Greg Sheridan for his support for data retention.

Liberty doesn’t come cheaply.

There are many ways police powers can be boosted to stymie the malevolent by curtailing liberty. Free societies such as Australia’s should resist that temptation and the Coalition of the Weird should reject them in parliament.

Then there is an appalling piece by Gillian Triggs – president of the so-called Australian Human Rights Commission:

FREEDOM of speech is alive and well in Australia but, with respect to Voltaire, we will not defend to the death those who abuse this right by vilifying others on the ground of race.

It is at this point that the balance needs to be found between the right to say whatever you please, and the right not to be vilified on the grounds of your skin colour.

It seems she wants to pick and choose her freedoms. Triggs is doing precisely want George Brandis argued she cannot do:

Senator BRANDIS: I will just be a few more minutes, Madam Chair. But, Professor Triggs, that is the problem. You are not meant to be the agency that warns about the limitations of freedom. You are meant to be the agency that advocates for freedom.

Senator PRATT: Balance, Senator Brandis.

Senator BRANDIS: No! There is nothing in the act or the covenant that talks about balance. You are meant to be the agency that advocates for freedom, just as you are meant to be the agency that advocates for egalitarian rights as well. Let the political process and public discussion find where the balance is, but it seems to me, with respect, that you go into this discussion with one hand willingly tied behind your back, not as the advocates of freedom but as the discussants of freedom.

You are not meant to be the discussants. You are meant to be the advocates. That is your statutory charter.

Whereas your commission is a dedicated and committed advocate of antidiscrimination principles, I do not see the commission being a dedicated and committed advocate of freedom principles. You have think tanks, like in the Institute of Public Affairs, which has something called a ‘freedom project’. I do not see a freedom project in the Human Rights Commission.

All up Triggs has done the great smear – anyone who supports free speech is clearly a racist.

That brings me to her comments on Geert Wilders. Triggs says:

Recent events have stimulated an important public discussion about the limits to free speech in Australia. Visiting Dutch politician Geert Wilders is a very controversial figure. Yet the Immigration Minister granted him a visa to speak about his views on Islam, offensive though they may be to many. This amply demonstrates that freedom of speech is flourishing in this country.

The government gave permission for someone to have controversial views. That is the extent of our freedom of speech.

This entry was posted in Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to Two articles on freedom

  1. What’s the difference between criticising the depraved views of The Greens and criticising the wicked ideology that is Islam? The only difference is, Islam is predominantly adhered to by non-white racial groups. Otherwise it’s the same deal: Wilders and Islam’s other critics are simply criticising an ideology because of its errors.

    Currently we’re still able to criticise The Greens without being labelled discriminatory, but I wonder how long that freedom will last!

  2. JJP

    Jones argues his point very well. Also, it’s good to see that Brandis is coming around to effect a more robust defence of Freedom of Speech.

  3. I wonder if Triggs realises just how far down the slippery slope of Fascism she is?
    My guess is that the dopey bint hasn’t a clue.

  4. Steve of Ferny Hills

    Well at least Brandis won’t have to rely solely on the Estimates transcript to justify giving Triggs the arse.

    That Triggs can rely on the shameful treatment meted out to Wilders by Chris Bowen as evidence for free speech flourishing in this country is unbelievable.

  5. harrys on the boat

    Is Triggs an Emily Lister? She’s seems incompentent enough.

  6. Andrew

    Is Triggs an Emily Lister? She’s seems incompentent enough.

    I think so. She could sue those evil conservatives for criticising her buddies for being pro-Abortion.

  7. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Nothing will change her mind, it is set rock solid.

    So it becomes very important to change her job.

  8. Token

    All up Triggs has done the great smear – anyone who supports free speech is clearly a racist.

    Let’s hope Triggs keeps speaking.

    She is doing long term damage to the repugnant authoritarian position she is pushing.

  9. Michael

    I notice that Triggs brings up Tobin’s prosecution for Holocaust Denial. As a “card carrying” member of the “Jewish Community” – at the time, I was not dismayed. However I’ve been forced to do a bit of thinking lately, as Human Rights ENFORCEMENT has become topical lately at both Federal and State (NSW) levels. Triggs is the person who awarded a medal to someone who used the inverse of Tobin to malighn another’s human rights – who was being prosecuted for offending yet another’s human rights.

    Kafka meets Lenin – or is that Kafka’s decription of Lenin or a Humanr Rights Commission.

  10. Jarrah

    with respect to Voltaire, we will not defend to the death those who abuse this right by vilifying others on the ground of race.

    That wasn’t Voltaire.

    It is at this point that the balance needs to be found between the right to say whatever you please, and the right not to be vilified on the grounds of your skin colour.

    Why? The first is a crucial component of being a free individual, as well as a structurally necessary feature of our democratic system (that would become farcical in the right’s absence). The second is a mere aspiration for a world where everyone is nice to each other.

    Rights are hierarchical. Lower-rung rights don’t get to ‘balance’ with higher ones, they are simply trumped.

  11. Sirocco

    Another agency ripe for abolition.

  12. Yet the Immigration Minister granted him a visa to speak about his views on Islam, offensive though they may be to many.

    What someone might say shouldn’t even be a consderation in regards to a visa application.

  13. JamesK

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

    Voltaire

  14. Michael

    I pressed “submit” too early.
    I wished to add that as a hopefully, “thinking” member of the Jewish Community, I think that our official PR bodies have got it wrong. The right to speak freely, including our right to offend, is our most important right. This does not include a right to incite harmful action – which is already illegal.

    I agree that there will be situations where things will become grey. What if being “offensive” to one group becomes a mass operation – I’m thinking of 1920s Germany.

    However the role of modern “Human Rights” commission in Australia and Canada, has largely been to witch-hunt hapless individuals and apply Star Chamber techniques.

    With respect to the first half of the article, – a must see, if you live in Sydney, is the play at the Ensemble – Liberty Equality Fraternity – should be converted to television and shown to the masses – and their masters.

  15. Harold

    She said she was working on violence didn’t she? Has she said anything about the violent speech suppressing protesters at the Wilders Melbourne talk?

    She can kill two birds with one stone right there.

  16. Dan

    No no Harold. You have the right to protest. You do not have the right to incite protest.

  17. Louis Hissink

    Triggs and her fellow travellers see ideas as personal beliefs, rather than objective abstractions; they believe that the person IS the idea and hence the reason why they invariably shoot the messenger, believing, falsely one should add, that by doing so solves the problem.

    The other problem is the idea of human rights – a collectivist term if there ever were one. It’s individual rights. Period. Only individuals can have rights. Human is a collective noun/adjective and an abstraction. To assign abstractions, “rights” is plain stupid.

    Yet by using the term “human rights”, we are giving Triggs and her people validity; we should not ever use the term human rights but the term individual rights. Using their terminology means we have simply given their views credence.

  18. Pedro

    It was an appalling article from Triggs. The 3rd paragraph shows how hopeless she is. Some dick was rude on a bus so the govt has to act.

    She’s also lying about the dangers of the current RDA provision. Losing in court is not the only punishment, being taken through the process is quite a slap even if you finally win.

    I’m sure offensive to be racially abused, but all abuse is offensive, that’s why is called abuse. It doesn’t matter whether you a minority, or a fat ugly loser, it’s just not the job for the govt.

  19. Lloyd

    So the antiWilders protestors who infringed on Wilders’ freedom of speech, on his potential audience’s freedom to hear his views to decide for themselves, on that same potential audience’s freedom of assembly and freedom of movement and who inflicted verbal abuse, physical abuse and through their intimidatory actions psychological abuse – those protestors face no sanctions from the Human Rights Tribunal?

    Maybe we deserve to be overrun by the godbotherers.

  20. Gab

    Maybe we deserve to be overrun by the godbotherers.

    Atheists. I suppose that would be better than being overrun by the islamists.

  21. amcoz

    I wonder how the ‘one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people eater’ would get on under Triggs’ jus-dis?

  22. Dan

    Spot on Louis. The most dangerous opinions come from those in government.

  23. amcoz

    Jarrah; it also notes that Voltaire said,

    If you want good laws, burn those you have and make new ones

  24. C.L.

    It is no exaggeration to say that the ‘Human Rights’ Commission fully supports Islamic terrorism.

    Jones’ piece was very welcome. Sheridan’s wacky support for police state spying on citizens’ mail last week was a disgrace.

  25. JamesK

    “Voltaire”

    No.

    Bollocks.

    No one knows for certain but it is widely attributed to Voltaire.

    Moreover it expresses well his known belief in the value he placed on the free exchange of ideas as Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s autobiography said:

    Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.

  26. Infidel Tiger

    Sheridan is a partially reformed lefty. So occasionally he’s going to say stuff that should see him hanged for idiocy.

  27. Token

    “Voltaire”

    No.

    Maybe it was Voltaire, most likely it is not. Either way, Trigg’s statements diminishes the principle of free speech.

    I’m not surprised Triggs did not mention the most striking abuse of free speech in Australian in the past 6 months.

    No surprises this was by the same people who want Triggs to shut people up.

  28. JamesK

    Sheridan is a partially reformed lefty. So occasionally he’s going to say stuff that should see him hanged for idiocy.

    What’s Jarrah’s excuse?

    Oh wait!

    He isn’t a reformed leftist, in part or otherwise.

  29. Jarrah

    Thanks for proving my point, JamesK.

  30. JamesK

    Thanks for proving my point, JamesK.

    “Au contraire”, as was famously mis-attributed to renown wag Voltaire.

  31. JamesK

    Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.

    Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance

    Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

    Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

  32. ilibcc

    Triggs seems out of her depth.

    One of these days we are going to have a discussion about people being elevated beyond their abilities via action programs.

    We’re just not ready for it yet.

  33. Septimus

    Anyone else notice?

    … Senator Xenaphon …

    The disgraceful Triggs seems to have evidenced a Freudian slip. The Senator’s name is Xenophon … not Xenaphon.

    It could be that Triggs has watched too many episodes of the Warrior Princess. But maybe she was just avoiding, consciously or otherwise, spelling it the same as xenophobia:

    Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries or of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

  34. Token

    Triggs:

    Recently however, there have been instances of racial abuse on public transport in Melbourne and Sydney and debate about the provisions in the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill relating to conduct that insults or offends.

    Strangely Triggs did not include the event that caused her to release statement 18 September 2012:

    Violent Protest in Sydney
    Statement from Professor Gillian Triggs, President, Australian Human Rights Commission

    It is with disappointment and concern that Australians witnessed the physically violent demonstrations in Sydney on Saturday by some protesters angered by a YouTube clip which is disrespectful and offensive in its depiction of Islam.

    Such violence cannot be condoned in a free and democratic society.

    Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are important human rights, but they cannot be used to camouflage extreme and violent action.

    It is vital, however, that the extreme behaviour of a small group of people are not seen to be representative of all Muslims.

    The actions of a few should not condemn the contribution of the overwhelming major ity of Muslims who live in Australia and who do the things that everyone else does on a daily basis – go to work, go to school, play sport, garden and shop.

    The demonstrations raise broader concerns about the use of social media, and how we balance the competing interests of a fast moving internet and social media industry, and the rights of people to freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom from vilification and hatred.

    We need a greater accountability by host providers to manage offensive material or indeed material that is going to incite hatred and violence across the world.

    Of course it was not the material being on Youtube that incited the violence which occured months after the stupid move was posted. This is well known, yet the statement Triggs made in Sep remains on the Aus gov website.

    Stopping Youtube would not stop the violence. It was the irrational actions of the immature morons. Triggs of course did not address that problem.

  35. jupes

    Two totalitarian regimes were destroyed during WW2. However the lessons learnt were largely interpreted incorrectly by the victors i.e. they believed that racism was the worst aspect of those regimes – particularly the Nazis – not totalitarianism.

    This is probably because the third totalitarian power was also a victor of the war and, aided by useful idiots, was able to emphasise the racism of the Nazis as the major evil. Concentrating on racism rather than the totalitarianism has led to many utterly bizarre beliefs and outcomes from the UN, the left and the ‘Human Rights’ industry:

    The Nazi regime is seen as worse than Imperial Japan even though both invaded other countries for conquest and killed millions by slave labour;

    Racism by whites is evil but by others not so much;

    Because it has a western culture, Israel is evil and the most criticised country in the UN;

    The non-totalitarian British Empire was worse than the totalitarian Soviets;

    This is what concentrates the mind of the Triggs of this world. It is how they justify to themselves a totalitarian response to an incident of a racist remark on a bus.

  36. jupes

    …to manage offensive material or indeed material that is going to incite hatred and violence across the world.

    Triggs wants to ban the Koran!?

  37. cohenite

    The other problem is the idea of human rights – a collectivist term if there ever were one. It’s individual rights. Period. Only individuals can have rights. Human is a collective noun/adjective and an abstraction. To assign abstractions, “rights” is plain stupid.

    A crucial distinction Louis.

    There is only one thing driving the current ‘debate’ about freedom of speech and that is this government’s desire to quell criticism.

    The spillover from this will be the strengthening of Islamic confrontation with the social infrastructure of this nation.

    Voltaire was an idiot; the epigone of the current relativism which allows destructive ideologies like Islam to thrive. The writings of Muhammad influenced not only Voltaire but also prominent chronicleers of Western society like Gibbons.

    Voltaire was a deist who believed in God but not the ridiculous manifestations of God so favoured in Christianity; Voltaire favoured Islam because of its simplicity; he used that simplicity to beat up his own society which was based on Christian principles.

    The left do the same thing today; they regard Islam as the victim of Western oppression and Islam aggression towards the West as a reasonable response to Western oppression.

    This is the Pilger approach and the rationale for the idea of blowback.

    It is foul bullshit; the West did not make Saddam, the Taliban, al–Qaeda, Osama, Polpot, or any of the vile butchers of the world.

    The fact is the left are spoilt brats who enjoy the safety and protection of the West while similtaneously indulging their egoes by endlessly criticising the hand that protects and feeds them; they are fools and if left to run the ‘debate’ will deliver the West to Islam and religious oppression for a centuries.

  38. Outer Heaven AU

    Triggs asserts most things, argues very few things, and proves absolutely nothing.

    “Most people would agree that this type of hate speech has no place in Australia and that the use of the Racial Discrimination Act provisions to condemn its expression was perfectly reasonable.”
    What evidence does she have that most people would agree?

    “It should therefore be clear that not only does the restriction on freedom of speech created by the racial vilification law apply in only the most egregious of cases, but that the offence is rarely prosecuted.”
    Compared to what? The draft laws she was gushing over on TV?

    “By contrast, there is a worrying trend regarding allegations of racial vilification. The commission received 120 complaints in 2012 compared with 50 in 2008.”
    Holy dog shit! 120! Compared to what? The 17,000 other complaints she mentions just two paragraphs before? Not much a of a trend.

    “In short, Australians do not fear that their right to freedom of speech is at risk.”
    On TV she ADMITTED Australians DO fear the draft legislation for putting their rights at risk. She’s tripping all over herself!

    Anyone who claims the right to not be offended or vilified, simply doesn’t understand the nature of a right. Get rid of her. Get rid of them all.

  39. Voltaire was an idiot; the epigone of the current relativism

    Um, “epigone”—from the ancient Greek, ἐπίγονοι, “descendants”—is a follower or imitator, not a forerunner or archetype.

  40. JamesK

    “epigone” is the epitome of hyperbowl

  41. Pedro

    Freedom lovers of the world, here is your rallying cry:

    “There is only one thing driving the current ‘debate’ about freedom of speech and that is this government’s desire to quell criticism.

    The spillover from this will be the strengthening of Islamic confrontation with the social infrastructure of this nation.

    Voltaire was an idiot; the epigone epitome of the current relativism which allows destructive ideologies like Islam to thrive.”

    Sheesh, the cohenite manifesto, say what you like as long as you shut up those muslims.

  42. Gab

    Well, at least he didn’t suggest they be beheaded, Pedro.

  43. All up Triggs has done the great smear – anyone who supports free speech is clearly a racist.

    Are you guys kidding? Libertarians do this all the time to those who dare oppose their maniacal open borders immigration views.

    As bad as Triggs is, she does pose a difficult question for the proponents of free speech at the IPA by raising the issue of Jones v Toben.

    One example was Jones v Toben, which concerned material published on the internet that cast doubt on whether the Holocaust occurred and implied that Jewish people offended by such denials were of limited intelligence or driven by financial gain. Outside of Israel, the Australian Jewish community has the highest percentage of Holocaust survivors in the world. The judge concluded the material would make Jewish Australians feel that they had been treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively.

    The IPA may or may not support free speech in this case. It is difficult to tell because they have never stated a view on the matter.

  44. Token

    Libertarians do this all the time to those who dare oppose their maniacal open borders immigration views.

    Nice strawman. By making this statement you prove you have not understood the argument as you miss the critical qualifications.

  45. Jarrah

    “Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770″

    No. Why do you keep digging yourself further into your hole?

  46. Pedro

    How is jones v toben a problem for the free speech case? It’s the point. Even the biggest fuckwit should be safe from prosecution. Think about Irving, I’d never want him silenced, but I had no problem with him not getting to the country because the immigration dept should keep out fuckwits.

    Sure gab, but people arguing for free speech shouldn’t be giving the impression we need to clamp down on the muslims. It is a fact that we might one day end up with enough muslims to take control of the govt. Some countries in Europe might not be too far from that.

  47. Gab

    but people arguing for free speech shouldn’t be giving the impression we need to clamp down on the muslims.

    Ah I see. Criticizing Islam and Islamists is wrong but criticizing Jews (or Christians) is okay.

  48. Token

    Sure gab, but people arguing for free speech shouldn’t be giving the impression we need to clamp down on the muslims.

    Interesting. This is how liberty is given away.

    Group A is violent opposed to the rights and principles of a society they migrate to for safety. Group A regularly abuses those rights and principles, and abuses those who stand up for them.

    When people say that that this behaviour is totally inappropriate, they are told they are “be giving the impression we need to clamp down on Group A”.

    Why does the term “Cheese eating surrender monkey” come to mind?

  49. Pedro

    I think you are not seeing, actually. Criticising is fine. I’m all for criticising. It seems like cohenite is for controlling.

  50. Pedro

    Token, Group A should be arrested if they commit crimes. and alan jones should go his hardest, even the many times he’s wrong or stupid.

    People who think we’re in some existential struggle creep me out. We’re not, and the evidence is that think we are leads to the shit we’re supposed to be against. Whether it’s asio powers, or murdering people with drones, the vast majority of the post 9/11 stuff is unjustifiable.

  51. .

    Correct pedro.

    bin Laden sort of won in a way in that he pushed free societies to become more like his society when he engaged in asymmetric warfare.

    He was a clever bastard but he got his just deserts.

    Given al Qaida is operationally defeated and although the Taliban are resurgent, the post 9/11 anti terrorism laws need to be reviewed and repealed if they cannot be justified.

  52. Token

    People who think we’re in some existential struggle creep me out.

    Thanks for your opinion.

    My opinion is people who deny that civilisation does not prevent contests of ideas, rather gives it structured rules are wimping out of reality in my opinion.

    Whether it’s asio powers, or murdering people with drones, the vast majority of the post 9/11 stuff is unjustifiable.

    I get creeped out that there are Neanderthals who indulge in violence due to their emotional immaturity who have forced me to forego liberties.

    You know the fact that is the lesser evil and I have to support creeps me out.

    Unfortunately, I have acknowledge the reality that with our species the primal motives of fear and greed overwhelm logic. I despise the reality that the politics of exploiting the negative emotions assist autocrats to maintain totalitarian control, and to get them to channel their anger at their wretched state at us, outsiders, inside of their rottern cultural framework.

    Finally, I reject the idea that I have to stand by as people who flee from those totalitarian states and are embranced by our society demand that they be allowed to turn our society into a mirror of the wretched world they came from.

    Sure gab, but people arguing for free speech shouldn’t be giving the impression we need to clamp down on the muslims.

    Considering all that, your statement seems a extremely poorly thought out kneejerk reaction.

  53. cohenite

    Oh dear, I’ve misused epigone. James’ correction was the wittiest.

    Pedro:

    Sheesh, the cohenite manifesto, say what you like as long as you shut up those muslims.

    It’s not a matter of shutting up the muslims; they’re honest fanatics and can always be relied upon to openly state their intentions.

    The problem is the quislings and politically correct amongst us trying to shut up anyone criticising the muslims.

    I’m yet to hear or read from the left, and the general purveyors of the Wilder’s thesis that it is not the muslims who are the problem but Islam, as to what exactly it is about Islam which is a problem and how an ideology can be a threat but not its adherents.

    Why don’t you explain Pedro?

  54. Rabz

    they’re honest fanatics and can always be relied upon to openly state their intentions.

    Except when those statements of intent are “taken out of context”, which seems to happen quite often.

  55. stackja

    Hasluck wrote:

    Chapter 4 – Australia Enters the War, September 1939–April 1940
    174
    The sentiments of Mr Menzies were acknowledged to be impeccable. “However long this conflict may last I do not seek a muzzled Opposition,” he said in his statement on 6th September on the outbreak of war. “Our institutions of Parliament, and of liberal thought, free speech and free criticism must go on.”

    attitude to civil rights and liberties,
    175
    It was generally accepted that in the exceptional circumstances of war exceptional powers were needed by the executive, but there was also concern lest such powers be abused and unwillingness to destroy the safeguards against arbitrary action which are characteristic of a parliamentary democracy.;

    177
    Under the National Security Regulations a government undoubtedly would have been able legally to suppress any public criticism of its exercise of these powers but it would have been politically risky to do so and, with the continuance of elections in wartime, the limits set by public opinion could
    178
    have been and in some cases were effective limits to
    the exercise of absolute power.

    attitude to National Security powers,
    178
    As it proved, public opinion was most active in the early days of the war when the exceptional powers were being used least. As the danger to Australia grew, national security measures became more severe, the infringement of civil liberty and personal rights more far-reaching, but, seeing the national danger, admitting the necessity for restraint and, perhaps, too, becoming accustomed to control and forgetful of liberty, public opinion itself accepted the abridgement of liberty.

    reactions to aliens control,
    594 .
    The injustice of indiscriminate internment, however, roused Australians themselves and, as a result of public protests and appeals, the application of the security powers was made less drastic and at the end of November 1940 enemy aliens were given the right to submit objections to an Aliens Tribunal which could recommend release if it were satisfied that the detention of a person was “neither necessary nor advisable for the public safety, the defence of the Commonwealth or the efficient prosecution of the war”, or that the release of the persons “would not be likely to occasion serious unrest in any Australian community”.

    We are not in the same situation as in 1939!
    Why the abridgement of rights now?
    Even in 1939 people could talk freely about politics.
    Are all these attempts to muzzle people so as to assist ALP in the coming campaign?

  56. Pedro

    I don’t need to explain. I agree with wilders that islam is a problem ideology, though I’m not so worried cause I think that the nutsy ones will fade out or blow themselves up. Might take a few decades, but most people don’t want to be poor stupid and repressed.

    Let’s face it, people tend to not stay religious in the modern world.

  57. cohenite

    taken out of context

    Islam recognises Taqiyya and Kitman so I suppose anything concilatory from Islam may be just expedient but my impression is that, at least in Australia, muslims can’t be bothered prevaricating because they know they can basically say what they want including having children holding up ‘behead infidels’ signs because, apart from some cursory investigation, there will be no consequences.

  58. cohenite

    Let’s face it, people tend to not stay religious in the modern world.

    No, that’s just crap; no where where islam is growing, and that is everywhere islam is, does islam show any internal progression towards a rejection of its fundamentalist edicts. But feel free to give me an example of where you see islam evolving from its fundamentalism.

  59. Sinclair Davidson

    But feel free to give me an example of where you see islam evolving from its fundamentalism.

    In the same way Judaism and Christianity evolved away from fundamentalism.

  60. Gab

    Let’s face it, people tend to not stay religious in the modern world.

    That may be true for some, depends on the religion though.

    The data has revealed that the Muslim population in Britain has almost doubled in ten years so that Muslims make up 50 percent of the residents in some British towns. Since the last census in 2001, the Muslim population in England and Wales increased by 80 percent (1.2 million), from 1.5 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2011, making it the second-largest religion in Britain…The ONS said one of the reasons for the massive growth in the number of Muslims in Britain is the rising number of Britons who are converting to Islam.

    Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent). There were increases in the other main religious group categories, with the number of Muslims increasing the most (from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent).

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-religion.html

    http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcizrarzt1apu2.ilct.html

  61. Louis Hissink

    This could be interesting – Judaism isn’t a proselytising religion, but Islam and Christianity are.

    All three are, however, problematical belief systems if unrestrained fundamentalism is allowed.

    The problem is quite simple – either the rights of the individual are paramount, or the collective, of which religion is one of many forms.

    So the HR Commission sides with whom then ? Protecting the intolerant fundies or the hapless individual?

    As the HR Commission is a statist/socialist creation, it will side with the religions, not the individuals, as we observe to this very day.

    All that Trigg and her fellow co-religionists seem to have done is set up yet another religion with its abstract deity and associated litany.

    Remember all religions are basically the old style of authoritarian government to make people behave in prescribed and proscribed ways.

    The individual has always been the loser in this game.

  62. Sinclair Davidson

    Judaism isn’t a proselytising religion

    Not anymore; the Romans put a stop to that, and Judaism lost to the competition from Christianity anyway.

  63. cohenite

    In the same way Judaism and Christianity evolved away from fundamentalism.

    I can see examples of where Christianity has evolved away from fundamentalism and is evolving; 2 examples under discussion are the compromise of the sanctity of the confessional and whether priests can marry.

    However, in Africa, there is a counter move towards fundamentalism.

    I can’t see any such movement within Islam.

    The key is whether the religion is prepared to conform to the prevailing secular legal and political structure of the society it is in or in the case of an Islamist society whether islam can tolerate a movement away from Islamic legal, social and political sourced authority and criteria.

    This is is the basic difference between Islam and the other faiths. In addition, as I said about Voltaire, the forebear of modern relativism, Islam is a much simpler theology than other faiths and it is that simplicity which is a bar to the reformation which Christainity went through and is still undergoing.

  64. Sinclair Davidson

    I can’t see any such movement within Islam.

    So what? Why do you imagine you’ll see signs of it now? Or that the signs would be clear for everyone to see? It might be a slow evolution or a sudden revolution.

  65. Jim Rose

    stackja, The French detained their communist MPs as defeatists and potential collaborators as soon as war was declared.

    Menzies banned the communist party for the same reason after the fall of France.

    Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay, Scottish Unionist Member of Parliament, was interned in 1940 out of fear he might read out in the Commons from stolen classified documents found in a police raid on his flat.

    Ramsey was one of the last detainees to be released in 1944 whereupon he resumed his seat in the house of commons.

    His only significant action in his remaining time was a motion calling for the reinstatement of the 1275 Statute of the Jewry, which among others things required Jews above the age of seven had to wear a yellow badge on his or her outer clothing, six inches by three inches

  66. cohenite

    By ‘signs’ I mean statements by leading islamic spokespersons that there is a concilitory capacity within islam towards the supremacy of the non-religious legal system of a host nation or a capacity to changing religious laws within Islam.

    We have seen the so-called Arab springs descend into tribalism in various nations, particularly Egypt with islam, the most organised tribe, gaining ascendacy, and Iraq must be countered a failure in terms of supplanting Islam with a secular democratic system.

    Let me ask you this; are you confident that islam in Australia will not be a source of social disruption of a scale including acts of terrorism in the near future?

  67. Jim Rose

    most branches of Judaism do not actively proselytize. instead non-Jews are encouraged to follow Noahide Law which is said to assure a place in the World to Come.

    Hinduism has no conversion/reconversion rituals whatsoever—one is free to choose any religion he/she wants.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

  68. jupes

    This is is the basic difference between Islam and the other faiths.

    Another difference is the smallness of the Koran compared to the Bible. The Koran only comprises 114 chapters – some of which are only a paragraph long. However 103 of those chapters contains what is should be considered ‘hate speech’.

    While the Bible has plenty of its own ‘hate speech’, there is enough love, hope and charity in there to avoid the bad stuff for a lifetime (of Sundays). Not so the Koran.

  69. Sinclair Davidson

    Let me ask you this; are you confident that islam in Australia will not be a source of social disruption of a scale including acts of terrorism in the near future?

    Yes.

  70. jupes

    are you confident that islam in Australia will not be a source of social disruption of a scale including acts of terrorism in the near future?

    The calculation is very simple. The greater the percentage of Muslims, the greater the social disruption and the greater the chance of terrorism.

  71. Sinclair Davidson

    Because people are more or less much the same and Moslems like all social conservatives will face the same challenges as everyone else. Modernity and rising wealth erode traditional values. That’s more or less Pedro’s point above.

  72. cohenite

    Why?

    Why would they blow up Australians in Bali and not in Australia?

  73. Sinclair Davidson

    Why would they blow up Australians in Bali and not in Australia?

    Because Indonesia is not Australia? Because the cost/benefit trade-off is different in a poor country relative to a rich country? Because Moslems in Australia have no reason to blow up people? Because Australian Moslems are law-abiding individuals who want to live their lives in peace? I could go on, but you get the idea.

  74. jupes

    Because people are more or less much the same …

    They are not. This is a common fallacy amongst many westerners.

    It there is a common thread in humanity, it is a desire to dominate other humans. That has been the history of the world. Muslims are not immune from this desire.

    Given a choice between a comfortable democratic, capitalist, libertarian life and Sharia Law, they will take Sharia.

  75. Infidel Tiger

    Modernity and rising wealth erode traditional values.

    The young Arabs lads that shave their scrotums and then flew two jetliners into two tall buildings and a field were all from middle class families and were university educated. They spent their final days getting shit faced and putting singles in strippers pantaloons.

    The modern world seemed to inspire them to even greater deeds of fundamental misadventure. If we want to be spared from their explosiveness we need to keep muslims as they have been traditionally; poor, ignorant and over there.

  76. Infidel Tiger

    Because Moslems in Australia have no reason to blow up people?

    Who were those folks who planned to blow up the MCG?

  77. C.L.

    Who were those folks who planned to blow up the MCG?

    Pell-admiring Catholics who support the Latin Mass?

  78. Sinclair Davidson

    1000 years ago the religious fundamentalists running around making a nuisance of themselves were Christians, 2000 years ago they were Jews. Now you’re telling me the the latest group of religious fundamentalists have no redeeming features and no capacity for change? I think you’ll find that Islam has less time to make its peace with modernity than either Judaism and Christianity.

  79. Jim Rose

    Sinclair, similar objections were made to Irish immigrants: Finnians all.

  80. cohenite

    Ah, you see muslims as “social conservatives”.

    They are not socially conservative at all; it is an eschatological religion, much more so then any other religion. This means that all mundane standards, economic, scientific, legal are subservient to the primary goal of Islam which is expanding; the reward for participating in this is in the next world.

    This is evident in the fact that most of the more notable of islamist suicide bombers, the twin towers, London underground, Scottish airport, Spainish railway, were well educated and successful. Bin Laden was a successful businessman.

    These people were not concerned with conserving anything other than the theological imperative of expanding the religion through conquest and receiving their due reward after life.

    The fact that most muslims do not participate in terrorism is beside the point; they are part of the infrastructure which supports terrorism; that infrastructure is not important in terms of bricks and mortar as the West sees infrastructure; how could it be when so many muslims who have achieved what the West would consider valuable are prepared to discard it for the higher virtue of personal sacrifice.

    I really think we in the West do not want to accept what we are dealing with in Islam; it is too terrifying.

  81. Sinclair Davidson

    Who were those folks who planned to blow up the MCG?

    The same people who actually blew up the Russell Street police station?

  82. C.L.

    I can see examples of where Christianity has evolved away from fundamentalism and is evolving; 2 examples under discussion are the compromise of the sanctity of the confessional and whether priests can marry.

    There is no compromise on the seal of the confessional.

    Nor should there be. Nor will there ever be.

    There are already married Catholic priests.

    In the Latin Rite, if you want to marry rather than be a priest, knock yourself out.

  83. jupes

    Because Moslems in Australia have no reason to blow up people?

    Except for the twenty Muslims convicted this century in Australia for terrorist offences.

    Because Australian Moslems are law-abiding individuals who want to live their lives in peace?

    Yes many want to live in peace. As long as it’s the Muslim idea of peace i.e. under Sharia. Never mind though, you will still be able to earn a crust Sinc, as long as you are happy to pay the Jizya.

    Sure, many Muslims do just want to take advantage of the western lifestyle, but not that many – if any – leave Islam, so that tells me that when push comes to shove, you know which side they will be on.

  84. I’m not Roman Catholic—I’m not even Christian—; but I support the Latin mass.

  85. C.L.

    1000 years ago the religious fundamentalists running around making a nuisance of themselves were Christians, 2000 years ago they were Jews.

    Muslims too. The ‘this is just their turn’ theory is, of course, baloney.

    Plus, Jews in AD 13 didn’t have access to plutonium.

  86. Sinclair Davidson

    Never mind though, you will still be able to earn a crust Sinc, as long as you are happy to pay the Jizya.

    Is that more or less than 45% plus medicare levy?

    I think you guys are being overly paranoid.

  87. jupes

    Now you’re telling me the the latest group of religious fundamentalists have no redeeming features and no capacity for change?

    They cannot change because the shortness of the Koran doesn’t allow it. Take hate out of the Koran and theres not much left.

    Also the Koran can’t be changed because it’s Allah talking directly to Moslems with Mohammed as his middle man. There is no room for interpretation.

    What are their redeeming features?

  88. Sinclair Davidson

    Jews in AD 13 didn’t have access to plutonium.

    You don’t need plutonium when you have Yahweh. :) Seriously though, you can’t brand a whole religion because of one rogue state.

  89. Jim Rose

    most of the more notable of islamist suicide bombers, the twin towers, London underground, Scottish airport, Spainish railway, were well educated and successful.

    that is because the stupid terrorists get caught.

    Numerous academic and government studies find that terrorists tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families.

    participation in terrorism is an application of the economics of occupational choice.

    1. Political involvement requires understanding of the issues, and learning the issues is a less costly endeavor for those who are better educated.

    2. organizations select more able participants—which points to th better educated and better off.

    HT: http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

  90. Gab

    1000 years ago the religious fundamentalists running around making a nuisance of themselves were Christians, 2000 years ago they were Jews

    And 1300 years ago muslim fundamentalists were running around making an almighty nuisance of themselves and they still are today. The only bright spark of hope has been in Egypt were there are people – muslims – actually demonstrating against the Brotherhood. Sadly though, they are mostly drowned out (not literally, but jailed and tortured) by the overwhelming majority that support Sharia Law.

  91. Aliice

    What is freedom when Woolworths is riupping me off because I live on the Northern Beaches and even the check out chick is telling me “yeah I know – me and my whole family drive to Liverpool, to shop and despite the petrol we save heaps.

    This is price discrimination.

    And then there are the fucking insurance companies ripping off every under twenty five year old BLIND.

    Exactly what do our politicians do when they get into power except hand all power over to fuckers like the insurance companiesd and the major banks to screw us blind (just so they get diddly squat in fdonations and / or a confortable job and / or a pension in perpetuity).

    Fuck I am pissed off tonight. Living in Australia is a joke and even the central bank can’t tell a straight fact about food and grocery inflation run by these fuckers (Coles and Woolies gouging).

    Pardon my swearing but what is happening here in OZ is bullshit. The banks and insurance companies have overrun the town.

  92. Sinclair Davidson

    Take hate out of the Koran and theres not much left.

    Read the Old Testament.

    Also the Koran can’t be changed because it’s Allah talking directly to Moslems with Mohammed as his middle man. There is no room for interpretation.

    Ahem – the Bible too has those exact same characteristics.

  93. Aliice

    Yopu know what ? Sinc is right. I saw a mufti get off a plane today and hey guess what he had a whole lot of boys wheeling his liuggage through like a bunch of slaves while miftis robes floated about in the breeze. Not a wpoman in sight.
    Its (the Koran) a bloody misogynist culture and I will be the first one to say it.

  94. Sinclair Davidson

    Aliice – the voice of sanity. It’s evil bankers and supermarkets not religious fanatics over-running the world. Sure you’re on the right thread?

  95. jupes

    I think you guys are being overly paranoid.

    Maybe. But probably not.

    Would you consider moving to Lakemba? Would you like to raise daughters there? If not, why not? Now imagine the country with Lakemba’s demographics. Would you like to live there?

    Immigration should be win / win for the country and for the immigrant. If the benefit is only for the immigrant, why the hell should Australian taxpayer’s keep stumping up. It’s madness.

  96. Sinclair Davidson

    I live in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

  97. jupes

    Read the Old Testament.

    I have. You miss the point. There is plenty of hate in there no doubt. However the OT is a very large book. There is enough good stuff in there to be able to avoid the bad stuff. Not so the Koran.

    Ahem – the Bible too has those exact same characteristics.

    No the Bible is subtley different. It is (or many Christians believe it is) ‘inspired’ by God. That gives a bit of wriggle room. Hence not every Christian believes that the universe was created in six days or that eating shell fish is an abomination.

    However I have never heard a Muslim claim that any part of the Koran isn’t Allah’s truth.

  98. dover_beach

    1000 years ago the religious fundamentalists running around making a nuisance of themselves were Christians, 2000 years ago they were Jews

    Who were these trouble-making Christian ‘fundamentalists’ of a thousand years ago?

    The ‘this is just their turn’ theory is, of course, baloney.

    Dead right. Christianity has never developed in the same manner that Judaism has, why then is there this expectation that Islam would follow the same road that either have trod?

  99. Sinclair Davidson

    Hence not every Christian believes …

    Well, yes. That lack of faith will work for everyone else too, in time.

  100. cohenite

    Old testament = Koran; where is the New testament in Islam?

    Seriously, what makes well educated, intelligent people blow themselves up for any reason, especially a farcially abstract notion about afterlife which Sam Harris describes as an al fresco bordello; read Koran 47:15, 76:15.

  101. jupes

    where is the New testament in Islam?

    The Hadith.

    Unfortunately Mohammed has a slightly different message to Jesus.

  102. jupes

    That lack of faith will work for everyone else too, in time.

    Well you have a lot of faith in Moslems losing their faith – a future event with no evidence whatsoever.

    Me? I believe my eyes.

  103. Gab

    Well you have a lot of faith in Moslems losing their faith

    Apostasy punishable by death, table for one.

  104. Sinclair Davidson

    Islam is not unique in that.

  105. Who were those folks who planned to blow up the MCG?

    Pell-admiring Catholics who support the Latin Mass?

    Hey – I never wanted to blow up the G.

    Fed Square, however……

  106. Gab

    Islam is not unique in that.

    Oh okay I didn’t realise. What religion(s) other than Islam executes an apostate in today’s modern world?

  107. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – right now? Probably not Judaism and Christianity. Not anymore. Although apostates might be considered figuratively dead.

  108. Well, yes. That lack of faith will work for everyone else too, in time.

    Sinc you are presupposing that we actually have time. For me, the events of the last week demonstrate otherwise. As for the bit about islam not being unique in the death sentence for apostasy, I’m still waiting for someone to point me to the fatwa that declares that one null and void.

    I suspect I’m better off not holding my breath.

  109. Aliice

    I think I am on the right thread Sinc but I could be wrong (it woulodnt be the first time LOL)

  110. cohenite

    The Hadith.

    Jupes I’m agreeing with what you are saying so I don’t want to get bogged down in the internal guts of the 2 religions, but I thought the Hadith was the interpretation of the Koran by Muhummad while the New testament was the interpretation of the Old Testament by Jesus.

    So basically the Hadith was the Koran reexpressed through homilies while the New testament softened the strictures of the OT because Jesus was a more forgiving and ultimately sacrificial figure. Muhummad was neither.

    I prefer to analyse religion in terms of individual psychology and adaptive behaviour. On this basis narcicissm and psychotism feature prominantly, particularly in suicide bombers and terrorists. Until we can call a spade a spade and classify such behaviour as insane this debate is going to chase itself up its arse as usual.

  111. Sinclair Davidson

    Sinc you are presupposing that we actually have time.

    Yes.

    I think I am on the right thread Sinc

    Good to hear.

  112. Jupes, the hadiths (or if you want to be precise, the ahadith) are the collected sayings and actions of Mohammed that are the example for muslims to live by.

    They illustrate the quran; the quran on its own is not enough to live by if you want to do it properly.

  113. Aliice

    Ok Sinc

    I acknowledge there are some really bad religious fanatics trying to overrun the world (and push women back into being bloody chattel – somewhere I will really resist going by screaming and kicking and being burnt at the stake if necessary)

    Yes for me that is the middle eastern religious fanatics, some parts of India religious fanatics and wherever else.

    I like hijabs but only if they come in nice colours. The ones that hide everything but the eyes and are all black are an insult to women across the globe.

    And no-one knows whether those women wear Victorias secrets under those robes or not and as far as I am concerned, some midd;le eastern men should back off on what women want to wear in this country FULL STOP.

  114. Sinclair Davidson

    Aliice – in total agreement. But again it’s not just middle eastern men …

  115. jupes

    but I thought the Hadith was the interpretation of the Koran by Muhummad while the New testament was the interpretation of the Old Testament by Jesus.

    I was making a very broad comparison. It would have been more accurate to state that the Hadith is similar to the Gospels. One is the story of Mohammad as told by his mates, the other is the story of Jesus as told by his mates.

    Different plots though.

    Until we can call a spade a spade and classify such behaviour as insane this debate is going to chase itself up its arse as usual.

    It certainly is insane. So is waiting for them to change that behaviour because they’ve benefited from western capitalism. Isn’t that right Sinc?

  116. Aliice

    Yeah I know Sinc – its not just middle eastern men (although they could be a bit worse than most at locking their women up).

    After all one of my first boyfriends was so handsome and had a name “wajdji nabih etc” and he looked sooo good under the disco ball to a an 18 year old until….well until I found out about the culture…enuff said but they never took their women to parties and though western women were there at the party but hey…where were the middle eastern women thought me???

    I wasnt stupid and I wasnt going to be used either Sinc. So enough of the hansomeness under the disco ball if they didnt want to play ball seriously etc

    Im afraid thats the way it is with them. The old men dont let their daighters out of their sight but think its fine for their sons to “play around” with Aussie women before marriage (and thats whats wrong with them).

    They are a pain in the neck IMHO. What would I have thought as an 18 year old? Their women were precious and to be wrapped up and cotton woolled but I (an aussie) was an experiment? I really dont think so.

    Three dates and he was gone (ejected). He didnt really do anything wrong and was sort of sweet and very handsome but his old man relatives made it perfectly clear…etc

  117. Aliice

    There is a story behind this of course
    Its a story of an innocent 18 year old aussie at a party who spots a hijab wearning girl of the same age sitting against a wall and not dancing (and looking miserable). So I do whar I do and try to get the gril up to dance seeing as she looked my age and wanted to?

    Instantly I was surrounded and she was surrounded by old angry men who were just completely painful and the girl wasnt allowed (was forbidden) to dance and I was abused for even attempting to introduce myself to this girl, and be friendly to her, a girl my own age.

    No culture I wanted to belong to with old men controlling whether I could dance or not or who I could speak to or not (I didnt care how good looking my date was after that).

    Really – I think the old men in this culture need to move on. This is Australia not the middle east and we dont lock up and confine our women and they need to get over it and trust their daughters and just fit in with our culture now (or go home andtake their comtrolling ways with them).

  118. stackja

    Jim Rose 25 Feb 13 at 6:21 pm
    communist MPs as defeatists and potential collaborators as soon as war was declared.
    Menzies banned the communist party for the same reason after the fall of France.

    Hitler and Stalin were allies in 1939.

  119. Sinclair Davidson

    Isn’t that right Sinc?

    Time will resolve uncertainty – in the meantime I am quietly confident.

  120. stackja

    Hasluck wrote:
    THE BANNING OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

    At the outset of the war the attitude of the Australian Government to Communist activities was tender, considering all the circumstances . The information before the Government during the early months of the war pointed to the possibility of war with Russia, either as the result of the German-Soviet pact or of an independent attack by Russia on the Middle East, South-Eastern Europe, or Afghanistan . Russian invasion of Finland , coupled with speculation about Germany ‘s interest in Scandinavia, raised a further risk that the Allies and the Soviet Union might become involved in hostilities against each other. Until Hitler struck in the East in 1941, there was never any certainty as to which side would gain Soviet aid . The Communist propagandists themselves had in mind the possibility that Great Britain and the Dominions might fight the Soviet Union.

    Then came the German invasion of Russia.

    It was not until December 1942, however, that the ban on the Communist Party was formally lifted. One of the major reasons for the delay had been the division of opinion in the Labour Party itself. The announcement was accompanied by explicit statements that the decision evidenced no sympathy by the Labour Government with any Communist doctrine.
    The announcement also made it clear that the lifting of the ban was not a decision on any principle of civil rights or liberties.

  121. Jim Rose

    stackja, thanks for the information

Comments are closed.