Well pay close attention, if you can! I never said the things you tried to link to me and if you are not mature enough to ackowledge that, so be it.

As for learn to write and tool..gee shucks I is so hurtz by that.. I rest my case GROW UP!

In the real world not all of us will fit into your straw man scenario. If you are incapable of debating or talking without drawing obvious bullshit and obnoxious extremes then take a bex and lie down instead.

I do gain some amusement at your pathetic attempts to attribute extreme and erronous views to me as compared to the well documented views of the mad mufti. Isn’t that some thing you normally accuse your reason for living howard and downer of?

Sorry it must be my poor educmication agains..I can’ t thinks of the word..Hysercitter ..no Hypercreature..Hypercritr..never mind.. I am sure such a edcmahcated person of your letter would recognise the term, every time they looks in the mirror

BTW ..Words by weight don’t make value.. bullshit by the ton is still bullshit

Mr. Graham Bell — where’s your outrage over eroded civil liberties?

Mr. “Blair” — what have you got to say about all this doubleplusungood badspeak? Or does this fall under the excusable “revolution is not a tea party, underpaid McDonald’s employees should hang their bosses from the lampposts” category?

In the US military code, “Section 8″ covers the grounds for discharge by reason of insanity. Seems perfectly consonant with this case.

Now I’d like you to look in my eyes and tell me that there was even the remotest chance in the world that I was referring to you in the frankly comment.
There that’s better.

What I have objected to is Eric B’s argument that because Islam is a minority religion it should be given a privileged position over religious beliefs held by the majority.

Frankly I think you’re on firmer practical (but not necessarily legal) ground for vilification for calling women sluts who deserve what they get.

Since I have never called women sluts who deserve what they get, I am on no ground at all for vilification.

If your remark is just badly worded and what you are trying to say is that to say such a thing would be better grounds for accusing someone of vilification then yes on the whole I would agree. And I think that the Sheik’s reported comments went very close to doing just that. I hope that the HREOC and its NSW equivalent are giving his sermon close study.

No no GregM that’s not logic that’s information.

If you’re suggesting that all religions should offer no questions asked afterlife salvation and equal regard for the faithful vs faithless then Valhalla I AM coming. It sounds like something I could really get behind, do you need some cash for the court case?

Frankly I think you’re on firmer practical (but not necessarily legal) ground for vilification for calling women sluts who deserve what they get.

How can one be vilified by a reference to a place that no atheist believes exists anyway?

Though we are used to being condemned to hell by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Need a bit of help with elementary logic, do we?

The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 will help.

Section 8 provides:

8. Religious vilification unlawful

(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

The views and beliefs of the person or class of persons being vilified are not relevant to whether they have been vilified.

The Sheik’s remarks about Christians, Jews and athiests passes the test in Section 8 in spades.

The *Two Dannys* have actually been vilifying Islam, which is against the spirit (if not the letter) of the federal anti-discrimination legislation.

The Sheiks’s remarks:

Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.

clearly vilify Christians and Jews (as well as athiests) in describing them as the worst of God’s creation and in saying that they will end up in hell for eternity.

What is the relevance of whether, as you claim:

The broader issue is that they (the two Danny’s) have the social weight of the *christian* faith behind them, while Muslims in Australia are in a very small (though growing) minority.

The logic of your argument is that because Muslims are a small minority they should have license to vilify others and that the Left should support them, or at least not condemn them, when they do so.

To hold such a position about the right of any group, where defined by ethnicity or religious persuasion, to vilify others is to apply an appalling double standard and is a path to creating an environment of racial and religious intolerance which you claim to deplore.

To “challenge at every level people who make those kind of commentsâ€? to taking the “taking children of imams hostageâ€? and trying to link me to that is unbelievable! Grow up

Then learn to write what you mean to say. Grow a brain, Tool.

Meanwhile, the Two Dannys are up on Star Chambers charges for “vilifyingâ€? the RoP.

The left yawns.

There is a distinct difference I think, while the Mufti’s comments have been roundly condemned, he was not – as the more rabid bampots (not at LP) have whinnied, *inciting* rape.

The *Two Dannys* have actually been vilifying Islam, which is against the spirit (if not the letter) of the federal anti-discrimination legislation.

That’s the legal, technical point. The broader issue is that they have the social weight of the *christian* faith behind them, while Muslims in Australia are in a very small (though growing) minority. The cultural backlash against Islam and against Arabic *looking* people (the infamous suspect who is of “Middle Eastern appearance”) is a virulent form of racism and religious intolerance.

The double standards of the media over the Cronulla riots is a case in point. Neo-Nazi fucknuckles with a boot full of petrol bombs and weapons get a slap over the wrist, Lebanese youths get jail and no bail.

Thanks to Katz and others who have maintained the decorum of this thread and engaged thoughtfully with the arguments.

Any opening that allows for a discussion with disaffected Islamic youth who are appalled by Hilali’s comments will be lost of the numnukasauruses of the right, such as the Bolts and Sheehans, are allowed to poison the well with their racist diatribe that *all Muslim males* are somehow tainted with the opinions of Hilali.
The last thing we should be doing is pushing any secularist Muslim youth towards the hardliners, we need to be encouraging political engagement with progressive forces, not a retreat into individual terror tactics.

I like it Eric…good points…but they also need to know that we are beginning to see the BS that is being committed upon them by dark forces of the night…even in the day. Until we do we aren’t really listening, no empathy, no real understanding of their plight…they might seem paranoid…but they have probably got good cause.

The sh*t stirrers are everywhere…some desire good ratings, advertising dollars from it. As was the case w/ radio jocks supporting a bunch of current affair’s assassins trying to CONSTRUCT the scenario that Logan is riddled w/ Islander gangs who live by the LA GANG sword.
The CH.9 crew were caught on surveillance camera paying kids to look tough & do gang signs. OUTED!

We stopped them for now dividing a society…but how many more BEFORE…& in the FUTURE?