Greenfield you are a disgrace.
No proof, no evidence and unsubstantiated.

Work available see….
http://www.fox.com/home.htm

Those lovely Palestinians have just killed the BBC journo. Talk about winning friends and influencing people.

As opposed to the tolerance for free speech of the IDF?

When you scratch just beneath the whole “anti-Zionist� crowd, you find a bitter 1970s Trot who has not reconciled him/herself with historical reality.

But they have reconciled themselves with reality…the fact that Israel is a racist colonial settler-state.

Speaking of self-righteous and useless blogosphere-lathering, what legal test would you require to detect a “dog-whistle�?

Along with disconnecting his scorn and ridicule amplifier, it appears that Strocchi has disconnected his irony detector.

Mais, plus ca change…

Advocating = aid and comfort.

Irrelevant and legally useless.

Terrorism = organised violence against civilians for political purposes

Incomplete and prejudicial.

Strocchi must try harder.

Just like those hairy-nostriled Trots still complaining about “the Revolution Betrayed�.

Solipsism is the epistemological basis for nihilism.

Indeed. I am too young to really have had much exposure to Trots-in-the-flesh. So correct me if I am wrong:

What has really spooked me of late is the
realization that all those NGO-types as well as the multi-culti commisars are really just peddling Trotskyism by stealth.

The whole hatred of Israel as a “racist imperialist, illegal” blah, blah, blah is just sour grapes that Trotskist International Socialism floundered.

When you scratch just beneath the whole “anti-Zionist” crowd, you find a bitter 1970s Trot who has not reconciled him/herself with historical reality.

Its not as if there hasnt been an avalanche of these concessions in other countries. You cant pick up a newspaper in the UK these days without reading of some liberal-left public figure conceding on this matter.

It is risible to expect people to take Larva-prodder claims about the ideological block-headedness and intellectual obscurantism of Bush’s War on Terror seriously when they show exactly the same vices in their side of the Culture War. Some black-kettle calling pots come to mind.

Do you want keep up the “we wuz robbed by dog-whistlers” mantra for ever? Just like those hairy-nostriled Trots still complaining about “the Revolution Betrayed”.

My advice: get real. The majority of your fellow citizens and most competent social scientists are taking this track.

Solipsism is the epistemological basis for nihilism.

Ah…for those fairy-floss halcyon days of the ANC.

Rudd’s election campaign is already shaping up to be an singing all danicing Teacher-Bashing Race-Baiting and Union-Bashing affair. Maybe Howard and Abbott have met their match?

1. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for advocacy?

2. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for terrorism?

Why not try the plain meaning of common English words for a change?:

Advocating = aid and comfort.
Terrorism = organised violence against civilians for political purposes

Katz says:

I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.

Your confidence is unreasonable. In fact the Wets have set the template for such definitions. Publications openly advocating terrorism should be banned, much for the same reason that racial and religious vilification is banned. So use the same form of test that was placed on the statutes to curb analogous forms of hate speech.

The social contract works both ways. Advocating political violence against ethnic persons (individual autonomies) or civil polity (institutional authority) is wrong.

They have witlessly cultivated this problem for ideological and electoral reasons. So its only fair that they provide the solution.

Speaking of self-righteous and useless blogosphere-lathering, what legal test would you require to detect a “dog-whistle”?

When Moses realized that, to the scornful joy of their foes, Aaron had let the people run wild, he stood at the gate of the camp and cried, “Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!” All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!” The Levites carried out the command of Moses, and that day there fell about three thousand of the people.

Does this extract “advocate” “terrorism”?

I’ve got a radical new cultural philosophy to retail. Why not just tell the truth straight for a change?

So Jack.

1. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for advocacy? (I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.)

2. What legal test would you legislate to determine guilt for terrorism? (I’m reasonably confident you wouldn’t leave it to pomo, multiculti, wet, surrender monkey, politically correct, luvvie judges to arrive at a common law definition.)

Enough of lathering up the blogosphere with your self-righteousness. Do something useful.

I would pose the question: would any of my actions in support of the ANC have been a criminal offence under either Ruddock’s proposed laws or the “anti-terrorist� laws currently in place, had they been in force in 1985?

Yes, and rightly so, if you had participated in a group that openly advocated violence against civilian targets.

Advocating, and carrying out, unlawful political homicide (murder) is wrong. And ethnic-based terrorists seem to be so much worse due to the fact that blood has a long memory, down the generations. (That is the danger of “family values”.)

Let’s see now. As a commenter at Catallaxy points out, V for Vendetta was widely described as “glorifying terrorists�. But there’s plenty more where that came from. Star Wars is a six-movie saga largely devoted to glorifying terrorists. And it’s not just science fiction. How about Michael Collins. For that matter, what about every single American movie about their independence, given that that was arguably viewed as terrorism by the British at the time?

I know its hard for Wets to re-enter the reality-based community after living so long in an ideological bubble. But perhaps I can help with some occupational therapy.

Here is my eccentric notion of terrorist incitement: unauthorised statements which encourage political violence against individuals or institutions by real people in the here and now.

The line between fantasy and reality is sometimes a thin one. So it does no harm to draw attention to it now and then.

When is Ruddock going to draft some legislation to ban election-year dog-whistle politicking?

Of course, we must ban “dog-whistling” politicians from slyly telling the truth to fed-up constituents. Just as we punish “gaffing” politicians from accidently telling the truth.

I’ve got a radical new cultural philosophy to retail. Why not just tell the truth straight for a change? Its good for the soul. Instead of having to swallow the barrage of lies and politically correct euphemisms that now sail under the flag of “liberal cultural discourse”.

The film, which also calls Jews “pigs�, received a PG rating from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, making it suitable to be bought and watched by children.

The film, contained in a package of DVDs prepared by radical Sheik Feiz Mohammed, calls for the murder of non-believers in Islam’s war on the West, according to newspaper reports.

How can this be wrong? I mean its free speech. And it represents a legitimate point of view from one of the many multiple cultures marvellous arrayed before us for our delectation.

Its exactly what our Liberal-Death-Wishing cultural doctors ordered.

Lets celebrate diversity!