Australian 'no-go' zones

[pErvinalia]

I don't think those sort of laws apply in Australia. I could be wrong, though.

[Hermit]

I don't think those sort of laws apply in Australia. I could be wrong, though.

We do have provisions to order people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, though. In my opinion Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily.

[Brian Peacock]

...
That's why I asked if it would be different if it were Ayaan Hirsi Ali making these points.

What do you think?

There's a broader principle in Secularism that simply the separation of church and state. The Secular principle is based on the understanding that religious membership is voluntary and that being a member of religion does not afford one more rights, privileges or protections than people of any other religion, or none. If the secularist defends freedom speech for the faithful or a broader right to a religion, for example, they also defend freedom of speech for all and a broader right to a freedom to-and-from religion. The game of trying to get the secular-minded to condemn or criticise one religion more than the others doesn't apply - all religions are basically equal and command no special place in the public square. This leaves secularists to judge the views and actions of religions and the religious independently of their religious assertions and/or beliefs, because, as noted, no individual members of any particular religion accrue any special rights, privileges, or protections which aren't afford equally to the differently-religion or the non-religious.

This is a great defense of Lauren Southern's right to pass out those leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area and near a Mosque. Religious people don't have more rights, privileges or protections than people of any other religion or no religion. Their beliefs are not the beliefs of others, and others can express - wherever they want -- anti-religious beliefs, just as religious people can express -- wherever they want -- religious beliefs (subject to private property rights) - without distinction based on content of the expression. If we all have equal rights to our religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs, and we all have the equal right to express them, then we all can go to public places and express them equally. That includes assholes - assholes have equal rights too.

Yes, and we all have equal responsibilities along with those equal rights.

What responsibility does Southern, and denizens of the Mosque, both have equally which is relevant here?

I can think of one -- the responsibility not to engage in violence against someone who is peacefully leafletting or expressing her opinion in a public space. Right?

What's another one?

Well, that's one rather specific example, but broadly its an equal responsibility to obey the law and not use the fact of our rights to undermine or limit the right of others.

[Forty Two]

Well, that's one rather vague example, and in order to know if one has not fulfilled that responsibility we would need to know what right was undermined, and how, and/or what law was not obeyed and how.

I would argue that Ms. Southern's right to free speech was undermined by being prevented from being in a public space and passing out leaflets advocating LGBT rights.

Allah is Gay

Allah-is-Gay-Leaflet-640x480.png (473.29 KiB) Viewed 1843 times

I really fail to see how it can be an undermining of someone's rights or a violation of the law to hand out that leaflet in a public space. Can you?

If you think it does, can you explain how that is?

Maybe Allah is gay. Is it hate speech to say he is?

What if it said God is gay, and Southern was passing it out in front of a church in Manhattan? Or, in Linden, Alabama?

If Muslims on the one hand, and Christians on the other, think it's blasphemy, is that what causes it to be illegal?

[Forty Two]

I don't think those sort of laws apply in Australia. I could be wrong, though.

We do have provisions to order people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, though. In my opinion Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily.

Don't the "keep your distance" laws involve getting a court order?

And, blockade? Really? Man the media just fucking lies. There was no blockade. She was in a little boat that fit like 2 to 4 people and had a video camera. Bullshit.

And, the Aquarius - the ship that was trafficking illegal immigrants into Sicily -- was shortly after Southern's protest -- was blocked from entering Sicily by the Italian government.

42 German MPs are signed onto an effort to bring legal action against NGOs shipping migrants into Europe. Criminal charges were filed in Germany regarding those efforts.

[JimC]

It is another question altogether whether it would be wise for a racist, anti-immigration, anti-muslim group to aggressively march through streets near a mosque, handing out anti-muslim pamphlets with all the charm of KKK members entering a New Orleans blues club.

Wise, no. Nor is it wise for women to walk around alone at night in short skirts in high crime neighborhoods. But, public policy should be to support their right to do it.

You said "aggressively" march (and "racist" and "antiimmigration"). But, what about the wisdom of just an anti-Islam group (say, a group of Richard Dawkins devotees) just marching (not, "aggressively" marching) down the street and handing out anti-Islam pamphlets. Things that say "Islam is not the way, the truth or the light" and explaining the "Allah Delusion?""

What about Barnes & Noble Bookseller in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, near a mosque, selling a book called "The Allah Delusion" along with a cartoon coloring book called "Mohammed, the Coloring Book," containing funny cartoons of the Mighty Mo?

In an ideal world, of course that should be possible. I've said already in this thread that muslims tend to be more prickly and uptight about what they perceive to be insults to their religion, compared to members of other religions. Fundamentalist muslims, at least, may react violently to criticism, even if it is relatively polite and without racist baggage.

My main point, however, was to point out the absurdity of Cunt's claim that there are true "no-go" areas in Oz, for example near the Lakemba mosque. No-go areas are not about potential reactions by muslims to protests against Islam, they are (supposedly) where a non-muslim would risk their lives by entering.

Whether the policeman was right to stop the provocateur from heading towards the mosque can be debated - I think there are arguments on both sides. But there is no support for Cunt's true contention, that western societies are rolling over to Islam.

[pErvinalia]

You Islamist!

[Forty Two]

It is another question altogether whether it would be wise for a racist, anti-immigration, anti-muslim group to aggressively march through streets near a mosque, handing out anti-muslim pamphlets with all the charm of KKK members entering a New Orleans blues club.

Wise, no. Nor is it wise for women to walk around alone at night in short skirts in high crime neighborhoods. But, public policy should be to support their right to do it.

You said "aggressively" march (and "racist" and "antiimmigration"). But, what about the wisdom of just an anti-Islam group (say, a group of Richard Dawkins devotees) just marching (not, "aggressively" marching) down the street and handing out anti-Islam pamphlets. Things that say "Islam is not the way, the truth or the light" and explaining the "Allah Delusion?""

What about Barnes & Noble Bookseller in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, near a mosque, selling a book called "The Allah Delusion" along with a cartoon coloring book called "Mohammed, the Coloring Book," containing funny cartoons of the Mighty Mo?

In an ideal world, of course that should be possible. I've said already in this thread that muslims tend to be more prickly and uptight about what they perceive to be insults to their religion, compared to members of other religions. Fundamentalist muslims, at least, may react violently to criticism, even if it is relatively polite and without racist baggage.

Well, when you live in a western country, wherein we have freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, then - I think someone else made this point - you have an equal responsibility not to undermine the rights of other people. So, that would entail their responsibility not to violently react to someone else's words, whether insulting or not.

My main point, however, was to point out the absurdity of Cunt's claim that there are true "no-go" areas in Oz, for example near the Lakemba mosque. No-go areas are not about potential reactions by muslims to protests against Islam, they are (supposedly) where a non-muslim would risk their lives by entering.

Yeah, I don't know anything about areas in Oz. If you say there are no such areas, then I guess there aren't any. My guess is that there are bad areas to which it's not advisable to go, and in which it would be dangerous to express the wrong opinion. That exists everywhere.

Whether the policeman was right to stop the provocateur from heading towards the mosque can be debated - I think there are arguments on both sides. But there is no support for Cunt's true contention, that western societies are rolling over to Islam.

Well, I don't see what the argument is for stopping her, based on what we know. There was nothing wrong or violent about her handout - saying Allah is gay or trans or whatever. Just words, and opinions, to which she is entitled. And, being a "provocateur" is a job description for some people - radio hosts, comedians, shock jocks, that sort of thing - their job is to push the limit of good taste, decorum and political correctness.

Look at Bill Maher and his shows - Political Correct and it's current version, Real Time - he insults all sorts of people - Christians, conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, white people, black people - you name it - he's a provocateur. Are we going to bar him from going places, because he says some goofy shit?

[Forty Two]

Bottom line is, just because a Mosque is on a street, or the neighborhood is mostly inhabited by Moslems - they aren't the bosses of other people. They don't get to veto what can be said in the public square or sidewalk. It's not cricket to have a system where the law is that Southern can hand out her leaflets on the Christian side of town, but not the Moslem side of town, because the reality is, in a western democracy, there are no such "sides of town" - there are only areas where more Christians live than other, or areas where more Musselmen live than others. That doesn't mean that minority religions and atheists have fewer rights there.

I don't get the people here saying that it was proper for Lauren Southern to be barred from handing out that stupid leaflet, or from walking into that neighborhood. I would think the very notion that a person who has not committed an offence can be preempted from freely moving down a public street is, well, anathema to the "civilized world." It's police state. I get that nobody likes Lauren Southern and she's an evil alt-rightie. But so what?

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

My guess is that there are bad areas to which it's not advisable to go, and in which it would be dangerous to express the wrong opinion.

The first, not at all, the second possibly, depending on how it's done...

(as far as dangerous areas in Oz, the nightclub areas of big cities such as Melbourne in the early hours of the morning would be far more dangerous than Lakemba - lots of pissed young blokes looking for fights...)

As far as the policeman and Southern goes, as I said I can see your argument in theory, but pragmatically it may have been a sensible move. It's drawing a long bow to use the term "police state"...

[Cunt]

...
That's why I asked if it would be different if it were Ayaan Hirsi Ali making these points.

What do you think?
.

I think the police would caution her about speaking out about Islam, then they would investigate the ritual murder of her producer, and threats to her life later, as well as they could. Then she would flee Australia for fear of her safety, and they would have one less contentious voice upsetting their beautiful, peaceful beach.

[Cunt]

'Answer the question'.
lol

Stop dodging the question.

Stop dodging the question by asking inane irrelevant questions.

I don't have any questions to answer, you do.

We'll just take your failure to answer as an admission that your argument has crashed and burnt.


Yet again

You don't seem to understand what 'no-go' zones are, and are focused on whatabboutism.

You can find examples of ALL KINDS of 'no-go' zones. For ALL KINDS of reasons.

Your not making an 'argument', just braying about how you don't understand.

What no-go zones are we talking about here? I know what a no-go zone is, but which one/s are we talking about specifically?

Well Yellowknife for one.

It's 'no-go' for sure, for people who don't like cold, or mosquitos.

I should mention also, I don't know if she had the pamphlets with her this time. They were part of what got her banned from England forever. The pamphlets which promote a worthy message, and a fair cause, and which NONE of us would hand out in a Muslim community.

It says something not very nice about us, and our interaction with that bit of institutionalized intolerance.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you think the UK refusing entry to a group of far-right extremists attending a publicity junket promoted by other far-right extremusts is really a synonym for an officially sanctioned special protection or privileging of Islam and/or the Muslim community in Britain?

[pErvinalia]

there are only areas where more Christians live than other, or areas where more Musselmen live than others.

[Hermit]

I don't think those sort of laws apply in Australia. I could be wrong, though.

We do have provisions to order people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, though. In my opinion Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily.

Don't the "keep your distance" laws involve getting a court order?

And, blockade? Really? Man the media just fucking lies. There was no blockade. She was in a little boat that fit like 2 to 4 people and had a video camera. Bullshit.

Who mentioned a blockade? The declared intent was to block the Aquarius from leaving Sicily and stop it from rescuing refugees who fled the Syrian war in overloaded rubber duckies. Lauren Southern's record makes her a person with "character of concern".

Federal Australian law can prevent potential visitors from entering Australia on the grounds of being a person with "character of concern". No actual crime need have been committed. It is sufficient reason "in the event that the non‑citizen were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a significant risk that the non‑citizen would: represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to that community or segment, or in any other way." Keywords are "concern", "risk" and "disruptive". All of them apply to Southern.

I have not had the time to search the New South Wales code, but I am pretty sure that it - and the laws of all other Australian states and territories - have similar provisions. And no, blocking someone from going somewhere does not always necessitate a court order anyway. Police do keep people apart when there is a perceived risk of trouble between them. The lack of a court order or actual violence being currently engaged does not forbid them from doing so. Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries. For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

I would not describe Southern a MAGA mob as she entered Haldon Street in Lakemba, but she was clearly intent on being "disruptive to that community or segment". She has a record of disruption in regard to Muslims. The cop was in his right to stop her from walking down the street and to forbid her to continue on to the Lakemba mosque.

That said, there is of course a certain irony involved when a liar who sets out to prove that Lakemba is an Islamic no go area - which it is not - is prevented from going into its main street and going anywhere near its mosque. Let me repeat that I can assure you from personal experience that it is nowhere near a no go area. I have entered Lakemba on a daily basis for ten years, or more. The people there are indeed overwhelmingly Muslim, and most of those Muslims arrived from Lebanon and Syria during times of war in their previous homelands. On average their behaviour is indistinguishable from the the average behaviour of Caucasians in surrounding suburbs. Southern is a liar and a wind-up merchant. Watch her clip with the sound muted and see if you find anything she filmed that hints at the area being a no go area. You'll be reminded of this clip I linked to twice before: