 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mugwump wrote: |
From the Times (copied due to paywall):
=====================
Hundreds of copies of the 'survivors' edition of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine are expected to go on sale in the UK when the magazine is published on Wednesday.
Radical preacher Anjem Choudray has criticised the magazine's controversial cartoon front cover of the Prophet Mohammed as "an act of war" and warned there will be "repercussions".
================
So not everyone thinks it is "perfect", apparently....  |
Indeed. Anyway, props to the ABC and The Guardian for publishing it, and no respect whatsoever for Fairfax's decision not to.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Oh I get it. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/rotterdam-mayor-ahmed-aboutaleb-says-if-you-dont-like-freedom-pack-your-bags/story-fnh81p7g-1227184231741
| Quote: | THE Muslim mayor of Rotterdam in the Netherlands says anyone who does not appreciate the freedom of life in Western civilisations can “pack their bags” and “f ... off”.
Ahmed Aboutaleb, 53, arrived in the Netherlands from his home country of Morocco as a teenager has become known as a straight-talking, no-nonsense proponent of integration.
On live Dutch television hours after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last week, he had a curt message for those who defy freedom.
“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” Mayor Aboutaleb said.
“But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake pack your bags and leave.
“If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f ... off.”
Mayor: ‘May I say, you can f ... off’
I am Charlie ... Mayor Aboutaleb (R), chief-editor of Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad Christiaan Ruesink (L) and Frank Pauw (C) deputy chief constable of the police in Rotterdam observe a minute of silence.
He said well-meaning Muslims would be ostracised now because of the actions of a minority who couldn’t find their place.
“This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at.”
Rotterdam is the second biggest Dutch city, with a population of 610,000. Mr Aboutaleb, a Labour politician and former journalist, assumed the office of mayor in January 2009.
He is the first mayor of a large city in the Netherlands who is an immigrant or a Muslim.
His comments won praise from his counterpart in London, Boris Johnson, who said Mr Aboutaleb was the voice of “Enlightenment”.
“If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear — and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice,” |
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can't blame our publications for not printing it, they're bound by the racial discrimination act section 18C. Australia is NOT Charlie. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Complete nonsense, Wokko. You have been reading the Australian again, no doubt. You will never make much sense on questions like these if you insist on filling your mind up with ill-informed garbage.
In fact, they are not restricted in any way from reprinting that cartoon or from saying anything they like about Muslims by the Racial Discrimination Act. Repeat, not restricted in the slightest.
The act very properly makes a distinction between comments about what someone is and what someone says or thinks, and the reason it does this is that you may choose your words and you adopt your beliefs of your own free will. Anyone may criticise those things freely if they wish.
However, you are NOT free to chose your race or your gender, and because you have no freedom not to be black or female or Jewish, it is quite properly illegal to abuse you for that thing (which you had no say in).
Hence, the act specifically excludes abuse of your opinions and beliefs (in particular it excludes religious beliefs) and provides no restriction on what I may say about them.
(Of course, there are other restrictions on what you may say, unrelated to the racial discrimination act, such as defamation law and the obvious restrictions on threatening someone with violence, and these apply to all citizens equally regardless of race, religion, or anything else except wealth and the ability to hire more lawyers.)
For more detail, see this excellent article in the Conversation - https://theconversation.com/repealing-18c-would-leave-jews-exposed-as-muslims-already-are-36131
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You are wrong. I may one day be able to do make much sense on questions like these if you insist on filling your mind up with ill-informed garbage. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | ^ Complete nonsense, Wokko. You have been reading the Australian again, no doubt. You will never make much sense on questions like these if you insist on filling your mind up with ill-informed garbage.
In fact, they are not restricted in any way from reprinting that cartoon or from saying anything they like about Muslims by the Racial Discrimination Act. Repeat, not restricted in the slightest.
The act very properly makes a distinction between comments about what someone is and what someone says or thinks, and the reason it does this is that you may choose your words and you adopt your beliefs of your own free will. Anyone may criticise those things freely if they wish.
However, you are NOT free to chose your race or your gender, and because you have no freedom not to be black or female or Jewish, it is quite properly illegal to abuse you for that thing (which you had no say in).
Hence, the act specifically excludes abuse of your opinions and beliefs (in particular it excludes religious beliefs) and provides no restriction on what I may say about them.
(Of course, there are other restrictions on what you may say, unrelated to the racial discrimination act, such as defamation law and the obvious restrictions on threatening someone with violence, and these apply to all citizens equally regardless of race, religion, or anything else except wealth and the ability to hire more lawyers.)
For more detail, see this excellent article in the Conversation - https://theconversation.com/repealing-18c-would-leave-jews-exposed-as-muslims-already-are-36131 |
Yeah nah.
Firstly, you're saying that being Jewish is a race not a religion? Someone can't convert to Judaism or recant from Judaism and become a christian?
Secondly, have you read 18c?
| Quote: | RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. |
Now it's not a real long bow to suggest that someone whose national or ethnic origin was that of middle eastern muslim would be offended by the publication of the cartoon in the newspaper. As such it is definitely a potential breach of 18c to publish the cartoon.
Secondary consideration is the simple one for an Australian media outlet, publishing the picture will serve no genuine purpose except to piss of a number of Muslim people. Never smart business.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Firstly, you're saying that being Jewish is a race not a religion? Someone can't convert to Judaism or recant from Judaism and become a christian?
|
Correct. That is the law, Stui. The act specifically makes that clear. Whether it should do so is another question; on balance I lean towards a "yes" but I'm open to persuasion on the point. Broadly speaking, Judaism is of course both a matter of religion and a matter of being born to Jewish parents, so it's a tricky one. However my view is beside the point: the law regards Judasim as a matter of race.
| stui magpie wrote: | | Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin |
Correct again as to the law, but incorrect as regards who it applies to. You would only be subject to the act if your abuse was directed to the nationality of the victim rather than his religion. In other words, I can be offensive and call you "an Islamic so-and-so" without the slightest chance of prosecution under the act. But if I call you an Islamic Syrian so-and-so or a black Muslim so-and-so, then it applies - but only if the court takes the view that my abuse was targetting your race rather than your religion.
| stui magpie wrote: | | Now it's not a real long bow to suggest that someone whose national or ethnic origin was that of middle eastern muslim would be offended by the publication of the cartoon in the newspaper. As such it is definitely a potential breach of 18c to publish the cartoon. |
Flat wrong, I'm afraid. Yep, that persom might well be offended, but that's his problem, nothing to do with the Racial Discrimination Act. Having helpfully supplied the relevant phrase from the act, you might care to ponder its meaning: "(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person". Notice the word "religion" in there? No? Can't find it? Correct, it is not in there. The act very carefully leaves it out. In short, the cartoon has nothing whatever to do with the act and no prosecution for it is possible.
If, on the other hand, you published a cartoon which was specifically directed at people of Lebanese descent (or Irish, or Aboriginal, or Polish), then that might fall under the act and you might be prosecuted for it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I apologize for the administrative error. While 18C may not apply to matters of Religion the Victorian RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 certainly does. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Good point. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Firstly, you're saying that being Jewish is a race not a religion? Someone can't convert to Judaism or recant from Judaism and become a christian?
|
Correct. That is the law, Stui. The act specifically makes that clear. Whether it should do so is another question; on balance I lean towards a "yes" but I'm open to persuasion on the point. Broadly speaking, Judaism is of course both a matter of religion and a matter of being born to Jewish parents, so it's a tricky one. However my view is beside the point: the law regards Judasim as a matter of race.
| stui magpie wrote: | | Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin |
Correct again as to the law, but incorrect as regards who it applies to. You would only be subject to the act if your abuse was directed to the nationality of the victim rather than his religion. In other words, I can be offensive and call you "an Islamic so-and-so" without the slightest chance of prosecution under the act. But if I call you an Islamic Syrian so-and-so or a black Muslim so-and-so, then it applies - but only if the court takes the view that my abuse was targetting your race rather than your religion.
| stui magpie wrote: | | Now it's not a real long bow to suggest that someone whose national or ethnic origin was that of middle eastern muslim would be offended by the publication of the cartoon in the newspaper. As such it is definitely a potential breach of 18c to publish the cartoon. |
Flat wrong, I'm afraid. Yep, that persom might well be offended, but that's his problem, nothing to do with the Racial Discrimination Act. Having helpfully supplied the relevant phrase from the act, you might care to ponder its meaning: "(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person". Notice the word "religion" in there? No? Can't find it? Correct, it is not in there. The act very carefully leaves it out. In short, the cartoon has nothing whatever to do with the act and no prosecution for it is possible.
If, on the other hand, you published a cartoon which was specifically directed at people of Lebanese descent (or Irish, or Aboriginal, or Polish), then that might fall under the act and you might be prosecuted for it. |
No argument that Religion isn't specified, but "Ethnic origin" is a sufficiently broad term that it can encompass religion in the case of a Muslim from a particular geographic area. That's an argument that would need to be tested at a tribunal and they're notoriously open at HREOC so could be interesting.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Under what circumstances? Can you give me a more specific reference? The name of the paper and the date, please. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stui, not a chance. Put money on it.
Wokko, that's useful to know. And your point is?
^ I mean that seriously, Mr W, not as a dismissive debating trick. So what is your point? What are the actual implications of that? (If any.) My money is on "none to speak of" but I'm not familiar with the act, so I'm all ears.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's the act the the Islamic Council used against Danny Nalliah when he ripped into Islam during one of his sermons. We never got to see the end of the appeals process because eventually the issue was mediated but VCAT found in favour of the Islamic Council initially.
Pretty much it adds religion into the mix of the RDA, Tasmania has a similar law but some states don't. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So what did he say?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
