Article

2006-08-22 Down Under

Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-08-22 03:14|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 IT IS impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable

Okay, there's got to be a catch in here somewhere. What the guy's point?

So, if I villify Islam for its generally atrocious treatment of women, I'm also defaming all of those Muslim men who do not beat or abuse their wives? That is to say, these guys are unable to distinguish themselves from the overall negative practices of their faith?

Muslims had better get real used to hearing the word "facism" connected with "Islam". Even in its most fundamental form, Islam is facistic. Its up to those who want to change their religion to begin distancing themselves from Islam's negative characteristics. If they want to sit around and decry how they're being slandered, their lack of concerted effort to institute genuine reform will rapidly paint them as part of the problem and not any portion of the solution.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-22 03:56|| 2006-08-22 03:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Exactly how can one vilify Islam, that'll supercede strict reporting of facts?

Posted by gromgoru 2006-08-22 05:18|| 2006-08-22 05:18|| Front Page Top

#3 It's interesting that telling the truth about a religion "vilifies" it.

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2006-08-22 06:59|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com] 2006-08-22 06:59|| Front Page Top

#4 "The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons."

Clearly then the Koran itself is guilty of all these contextually but why is it not on the dock? We do live in self-inflicted bizarre PC times by mind crippling choice of foolish conventions.

Posted by Duh! 2006-08-22 07:10|| 2006-08-22 07:10|| Front Page Top

#5 The real background story, unfortunately, is that you can villify Christians and Christian symbols all you want. When it comes to the muzzies, however, don't even look at them wrong, or you'll be accused of 'hate'. Look at these type of 'hate speech' or 'hate crime' cases that are being brought up all over the world, and find me one muslim who is being charged for villifying Christians or Jews.

OK then, I'll bite. Hey muzzies, I do HATE your religion. Deal.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-22 08:27|| 2006-08-22 08:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Why didn't he just order them to bend over and grab their ankles.
Shit! It's written in black and white, you can go to the mosque and hear them say this stuff. What more do you need to make accusations of this nature. I don't think the law was meant to apply to people telling the truth.

Posted by Jaiger Spaviting9126 2006-08-22 08:43|| 2006-08-22 08:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Brind Woinarski's logic is so backward, it's not worth this article or my comments.

Posted by wxjames 2006-08-22 08:45|| 2006-08-22 08:45|| Front Page Top

#8 And what was this heinous hate crime? Reading from the koran. Now apply the law to all. For the act of villification, arrest and deport all the koran readers. It's not only the right thing to do, IT'S THE LAW.

Posted by ed 2006-08-22 09:25|| 2006-08-22 09:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Read carefully...

IT IS impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable, the Victorian Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

"If one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief," Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.

Mr Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria's religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.

The guy who is saying this is the guy SUING the christian pastors. He wants to silence them and their preaching, so he denies that there SHOULD BE an intellecutal distinction between Islam as a religion and its adherents. The pastors are appealing the lower court's conviction, and he wants the conviction to stick.

Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked Mr Woinarski: "There must be intellectually a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them?" "We don't agree with that," Mr Woinarski said. "But in this case it's an irrelevant distinction, because Muslims and Islam were mishmashed up together."

No they weren't: he was SAYING that they were.

The problem here is that the law forbids certain kinds of speech regardless of veracity of it. CAIR has SUED for certain kinds of speech, but later always dropped the cases and never took any to court because in the US, truth is the ultimate defense. That's not the case in many western nations, and you can be prosecuted (not sued, but prosecuted) for telling the truth if the truth offends someone. That's the situation here.

The ultimate weapon against Taquyia (lying to preserve the reputation of Muslims and Islam) is to present the truth. Thus, suppressing the free expression of truth is goal #1 of Islam in Western Civilization. IMHO, those nations that criminalize truth-telling in the name of sparing people's feelings deserve whatever punishment God issues on the day of Judgment.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-08-22 09:27|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-08-22 09:27|| Front Page Top

#10 The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.

Under the plaintiffs concept one could not vilify any idea without vilifying the holders of that idea, including (presumably):

Socialim/socialists
Capitalism/capitalists
God/anyone who believes in god
Atheism/anyone who does not believe in god
Liberlism/liberals
conservatism/conservatives
etc.

Rantburg would certainly be a lot less fun.

Posted by DoDo 2006-08-22 11:42|| 2006-08-22 11:42|| Front Page Top

#11 Make sure to add 'Courts/Judges' and 'Legislatures/Legislators' to that list. I've got some 'villifying' to do. They're the ones who caused it.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-22 11:57|| 2006-08-22 11:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Ptah, "sparing people's feelings" should never be done at the expense of truth and rights. We must villify what is vile and sheer fascistic effort to subjugate freedom in the name of being "offended". It's just sheer subversive Arrogance in sheeps clothing.

Posted by Duh! 2006-08-22 12:19|| 2006-08-22 12:19|| Front Page Top

#13 During the tribunal proceedings, it was found offensive to Muslims to quote the unholy Koran, as a right of defense. Ergo: the judgment for the Muslims, was executed without Fair Hearing. Proceedings were Inquisitional, and the pastors were expected to admit to hate propagation, and take their pre-determined punishment. Stalin's Show Trials revealed a greater respect for due process than this exercise in surrogate Shariah enforcement.

The Defendents could say that Muslims are subject to jihad terror conscription, but they couldn't quote the unholy Koran ordenance, "Jihad is prescribed to you." The decision was based on the mentality of the generation of dhimmis who were indoctrinated in the benign-Muslim dogma of Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, and the rest of the tenured morons who subvert American resolve.

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-22 18:10|| 2006-08-22 18:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Lets try and be fair about this. Every Muslim knows that they will have to forfeit their life if they attack any section of the Koran. It's called apostasy.
So why should anybody else expect to get off scott free if they do the same?
It's only fair that they suffer some punishment, isn't it?
I mean, why should Muslims be the only ones to suffer?
/sarcasm off.

Posted by tipper 2006-08-22 23:03|| 2006-08-22 23:03|| Front Page Top

23:39 2b
23:37 Jan
23:37 2b
23:36 Old Patriot
23:33 twobyfour
23:22 Zenster
23:22 twobyfour
23:20 2b
23:11 Jan
23:09 rjschwarz
23:09 rjschwarz
23:08 3dc
23:05 DMFD
23:03 tipper
23:03 3dc
23:00 trailing wife
22:56 trailing wife
22:49 flyover
22:49 trailing wife
22:46 Elmolusing Glomose5369
22:46 flyover
22:43 Zenster
22:42 3dc
22:40 JSU
Merry-Go-Blog