T Nation

Australia/Islamic Nation?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,21032622-661,00.html

"Radicals can’t be stopped
Matthew Schulz

January 09, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE Federal Government says it is powerless to ban a Muslim group calling for Australia to be taken over as part of an Islamic superstate.

Attorney General Phillip Ruddock said today there was not enough evidence to ban the Hizb ut-Tahrir group despite its continuing call for Australia to become part of a Caliphate or “Khilafah”.

The group, already banned across the Middle East, the United Kingdom and Germany - will host a Sydney conference this month to promote an Islamic takeover."

This is no different from the white supremacists here and in places like Germany that want to reform the country in their own image.

Yes it is seriously messed up, but until they start to talk about slaughtering infidels to achieve their means (which according to the article they never did), there really isn’t much you can do about it.

Fat chance the aussies would ever let that happen though.

Oh no, another country that allows freedom of speech.

Let’s see if I have the invasion schedule down right…

Iran
Holland
Australia

You know, it strikes me as ironic that some people in a country that prides itself on freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are so offended by it when they see it in action in other countries.

It’s not like there aren’t enough wackos in the US, talking about ridiculous things, that we have to go looking elsewhere for examples.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You know, it strikes me as ironic that some people in a country that prides itself on freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are so offended by it when they see it in action in other countries.

It’s not like there aren’t enough wackos in the US, talking about ridiculous things, that we have to go looking elsewhere for examples.[/quote]

In just about all countries that allow “free speech,” you still have rules about hate speech and inciting violence (“fighting words” I believe, is the common term.)

I don’t think we should stand idly by and say nothing while nutcase hate mongerer are inciting people to commit violence against others.

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
You know, it strikes me as ironic that some people in a country that prides itself on freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are so offended by it when they see it in action in other countries.

It’s not like there aren’t enough wackos in the US, talking about ridiculous things, that we have to go looking elsewhere for examples.

In just about all countries that allow “free speech,” you still have rules about hate speech and inciting violence (“fighting words” I believe, is the common term.)

I don’t think we should stand idly by and say nothing while nutcase hate mongerer are inciting people to commit violence against others.

[/quote]

The problem is not where the line is drawn, but that the line is invisible.

Who decides what constitutes as inciting violence?

Certainly, sometimes it’s obvious. “Kill all the Jews” and “Kill all Muslim children” are definetly over the line.

But what about the more ambiguous statements? People who call for the conversions of others, and imply the use of force? How about people who pray for their deity to kill people ::coughPatRobertsoncough::.

I believe in freedom of speech, even for my enemies. But I still can’t find a way we can make the line solid and visible.

On topic: Do you seriously believe Australia will soon be a Middle Eastern controlled continent? If people want to convert… they will. Will they? Probably not.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
You know, it strikes me as ironic that some people in a country that prides itself on freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are so offended by it when they see it in action in other countries.

It’s not like there aren’t enough wackos in the US, talking about ridiculous things, that we have to go looking elsewhere for examples.

In just about all countries that allow “free speech,” you still have rules about hate speech and inciting violence (“fighting words” I believe, is the common term.)

I don’t think we should stand idly by and say nothing while nutcase hate mongerer are inciting people to commit violence against others.

The problem is not where the line is drawn, but that the line is invisible.

Who decides what constitutes as inciting violence?

Certainly, sometimes it’s obvious. “Kill all the Jews” and “Kill all Muslim children” are definetly over the line.

But what about the more ambiguous statements? People who call for the conversions of others, and imply the use of force? How about people who pray for their deity to kill people ::coughPatRobertsoncough::.

I believe in freedom of speech, even for my enemies. But I still can’t find a way we can make the line solid and visible.

On topic: Do you seriously believe Australia will soon be a Middle Eastern controlled continent? If people want to convert… they will. Will they? Probably not. [/quote]

Well, I’m not sure about Australia. Not familiar with their birthrates. Now, Eurabia on the otherhand…

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The problem is not where the line is drawn, but that the line is invisible.

Who decides what constitutes as inciting violence?[/quote]

I do.

Just kidding.

In Australia, it appears to be the judges, since the initial article has the General Attorney talking about “lack of evidence.”

What’s the alternative? Just because defining hate speech is difficult, does that mean we give up and allow every nutcase to spout anything he wants with no possible consequences?

Maybe the current solution sucks, but have you a better one?

Somewhat diheartening, but I suspect Australia has the cajones to defend her values and cultures. Europe - intoxicated on the silliness of multicultural absolutism - less so.

As to the ‘freedom of speech’ issue, though Australia and the US are no doubt somewhat different, the Constitution is not a ‘suicide pact’:

“The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

-Thomas Jefferson

“Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

-Abraham Lincoln

“The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

-Justice Jackson, dissent in Terminiello

Hitler always said, in his speeches and especially at his trial, that he would overthrow the Republic by its own rules.

One bullet in the head would have saved the world a lot of misery…

I hereby call on all Americans to convert to Scientology, pay your tithes, and assist us forming a new state founded upon our principles in place of this current thetan enslaving abomination. We shall call it the Union Against Xenu, or UAX for short. Free your thetan and fulfill your destiny!

Does this now make me an enemy of the state?

Etaco, no shit!

Folks, there is a big difference between someone saying “I think I’d like system X in place, or law Y changed in some manner” and hate speech.

Some of you really need to ask yourself whether you believe in free speech or not.

What if someone questions the governments right to torture people in GITMO, is that a violation of free speech all of a sudden?

Are Christians no longer able to say that they would prefer a government based on Christian values?

Get a fucking grip. Your fear and hatred has paralyzed your ability to think and you have thrown away all of your principles…

It’s shameful, though instructive, to see.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Folks, there is a big difference between someone saying “I think I’d like system X in place, or law Y changed in some manner” and hate speech.[/quote]

Did you miss the part about the “take over?”

[i]calling for Australia to be taken over as part of an Islamic superstate.

…to promote an Islamic takeover."[/i]

Somehow, it doesn’t have that democracy-loving, freedom-promoting ring to it.

Maybe it’s just me.

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Folks, there is a big difference between someone saying “I think I’d like system X in place, or law Y changed in some manner” and hate speech.

Did you miss the part about the “take over?”

[i]calling for Australia to be taken over as part of an Islamic superstate.

…to promote an Islamic takeover."[/i]

Somehow, it doesn’t have that democracy-loving, freedom-promoting ring to it.

Maybe it’s just me.
[/quote]

Yup. I was taking it just as it’s written.

Let’s put it another way.

I think I should be Emperor of the United States. I call on everyone to help install me as such.

Are the federal agents on their way yet? No? Perhaps there’s a difference between idly wanting something and actively pursuing that end, let alone actually having some means of achieving that end.

Plenty of people have grand designs on the US, Australia, and pretty much everywhere else except Texas. Until they start picking up guns, or at least making specific plans to actually do so, they’re guilty of nothing more than being annoyingly over-opinionated.

The democrats took over congress recently… does that sound scary.

Wait, let me rephrase that… :wink:

In any case, if by takeover they are planning to somehow develop a majority and use voting to get in place, they can say whatever they want.

Again, like Etaco said, it’s not against the law to idly speculate about things, or to express wishes you can’t fulfil (in most cases).

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Seriously though, I understand it may be a heartfelt expressed viewpoint, and I do understand that there is a dire danger whenever fundamental religious beliefs are set to clash with other beliefs or secular governments.

We have to decide what world we want to live in. While I don’t want to be forcibly converted to Islam, neither do I want to live in a police state where peoples thoughts and words are so heavily controlled.

Governments must uphold their principles or they stop being authorized representatives of public will… which means that citizens will no longer have a duty to abide by it’s policies, though they may be forced to.

And if this was the Nazi party recruiting to “take over” Australia during WW2, as an Axis power super state, would there have been any hesitation to at least throw them out of the country?

When your enemies are saying “Woo-hoo, here we are! And we’re recruiting within your borders,” and nothing is done…It’s not principled to do nothing. It’s stupidity! And yes, Islamic totalitarianism is the enemy. Tell them to pack up and find one of those Islamic states to live under. Where the hell did common sense go?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And if this was the Nazi party recruiting to “take over” Australia during WW2, as an Axis power super state, would there have been any hesitation to at least throw them out of the country?

When your enemies are saying “Woo-hoo, here we are! And we’re recruiting within your borders,” and nothing is done…It’s not principled to do nothing. It’s stupidity! And yes, Islamic totalitarianism is the enemy. Tell them to pack up and find one of those Islamic states to live under. Where the hell did common sense go?
[/quote]

If people are peacefully using their rights to espouse their beliefs then there isn’t much you can do about that. If they aren’t citizens, then by all means, evict them from the country.

I’m sure there are groups in the US that espouse communism, an replacement of the government by something else, and so on.

Now, if they are “plotting” something illegal, then by all means, go get them. Stop letting your emotions cloud your thinking. Throwing around words like Nazi’s and so on is great, but it means you lose the debate.

You have nothing but scary emotional words to cause fear and bring out the worst in people.

If new laws, within the constitution, are needed to handle the situation, then they can be enacted.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Throwing around words like Nazi’s and so on is great, but it means you lose the debate.

[/quote]

Nice jump in logic. Because comparing despotic and violent ideologies is an auto -loss? Islamic totalitarianism is our Nazism. It isn’t some defeated and marginalized threat. It’s a thriving ideal that continues to grow in the present.

It brutalizes, oppresses, and destroys throughout the muslim mid-east. It sponsors violent and bloody Islamic separatist movements across the globe. Exporting terror to countries far and wide.

I don’t hesitate comparing the two. In fact, I believe Islamic totalitarianism will soon eclipse Nazism as the greater of historical evils.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html