Australian 'no-go' zones

[Scot Dutchy]

Trolls dont have answers that is why they troll.

[Cunt]

'Answer the question'.
lol
You have done nothing but evade the main point Ms. Southern was exploiting to make her video.

So far, we have had it suggested that she was guilty of an offense, but no-one said what the offense was. I mean, someone said 'disturbing the peace', but they didn't say how she did it.

It seems she was guilty of saying things in public.

[rainbow]

I don't submit to religion, but I understand why you might.

would you hand out those pamphlets, in front of mosques and other areas where Muslims are found? To support the inclusion of LGBTQ+AIP in the Islamic community.

Would you hand out art showing the Pope buggering a choir-boy in a Catholic area in NI?

I wouldn't, no. But, if someone did, and some Catholics beat the shit out of the anti-pedophilia activist handing out the pictures, I would suggest that the anti-pedophilia activist did something I personally believe is tasteless and insulting, but perfectly legal and within her rights. The Catholics doing the beating are in the wrong, and should be prosecuted for their crimes.

...and if this resulted in a renewal of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, you would be cool with that?

[rainbow]

'Answer the question'.
lol

Stop dodging the question.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trolls dont answer.

[Cunt]

'Answer the question'.
lol

Stop dodging the question.

Stop dodging the question by asking inane irrelevant questions.

[Forty Two]

I wouldn't, no. But, if someone did, and some Catholics beat the shit out of the anti-pedophilia activist handing out the pictures, I would suggest that the anti-pedophilia activist did something I personally believe is tasteless and insulting, but perfectly legal and within her rights. The Catholics doing the beating are in the wrong, and should be prosecuted for their crimes.

...and if this resulted in a renewal of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, you would be cool with that?

"Cool with it?" No.

But, I would not punish the peaceful, law abiding, person whose only crime is to voice their opinion, and reward the violent, assaultive, battering, threatening religious extremist whose view is not only that it is "cool" to beat people up for what they say and express, but who view that as a moral imperative to beat the infidel/blasphemer.

What I wouldn't be "cool with" is a system that the law will reward the heckler, and afford the heckler a veto on what other people may say in public.

Would you be "cool with" the police in Linden, Alabama refusing to allow activists for racial equality and black power to protest and hand out leaflets that showed Goodloe Sutton in unflattering poses with a black man, because they claim that people living in Linden, Alabama would try to beat them up?

[rainbow]

'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

[rainbow]

Would you be "cool with" the police in Linden, Alabama refusing to allow activists for racial equality and black power to protest and hand out leaflets that showed Goodloe Sutton in unflattering poses with a black man, because they claim that people living in Linden, Alabama would try to beat them up?

If it were to result in ethnic violence, then the police should intervene.

Do you disagree?

[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?

[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.

So, tell me what you think it is you're hearing from your fellow forum members on this matter and which seemingly allows you to lambasts them as apologists for Islam? And by that I mean, what you think you're hearing rather than what you think you're not hearing - because everything you're not hearing is everything that's not being said.

[NineBerry]

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)

Are they carrying honey with them or not? And are they wearing different-colour socks?

[Forty Two]

Would you be "cool with" the police in Linden, Alabama refusing to allow activists for racial equality and black power to protest and hand out leaflets that showed Goodloe Sutton in unflattering poses with a black man, because they claim that people living in Linden, Alabama would try to beat them up?

If it were to result in ethnic violence, then the police should intervene.

Do you disagree?

No, of course not. We agree.

The police should not prevent or refuse to allow activists to pass out the insulting leaflets and march down the street, but should intervene if the March "were to result in ethnic violence." I.e. the police can intervene if someone becomes violent, to stop the violence and arrest the perpetrators.

The police cannot use their personal judgment, though, that the person's mere presence and/or his/her effort to hand out allegedly insulting leaflets is going to cause someone else to become violent, and then thereby restrain the speaker from speaking in advance. To do that is the State telling the people what opinions they can and cannot read and see.

Do you agree?

[Forty Two]

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)

Are they carrying honey with them or not? And are they wearing different-colour socks?

No, they're carrying pink signs and such - something like this - right past that Mosque -- and they plan on pulling over in front of it -- chicks in tight t-shirts, too.



And, this one too -- where "Allah" is likened to the claim that Bigfoot exists.

Allah is like Bigfood

allah.jpg (50.96 KiB) Viewed 2036 times

And, hot Iranian-American girls in tight t-shirts will be right out in front of that Mosque, all apostate and stuff:


They plan on handing out free copies of Dawkins' God Delusion, along with free copies of Sujit Das' book of similar name, "The Allah Delusion."

They say the best place to make these kinds of activist pitches is in locations where lots of brainwashed believers live - they specifically want to go to this particular street precisely because the Mosque is there, and they expect lots of believers -- devout believers -- to be there, so they can show those believers that they are on the wrong path - a damaging path - and that they are raising their children through the child abuse of religious indoctrination.

The police are on the way to prevent the bus from entering the neighborhood and lawfully parking in the bus lane across from the mosque (which allows parking there for cars and buses). The police say that an Iranian-American apostate Muslim woman in a tight t-shirt with a blasphemous slogan, out without a male relative, and a bus full of atheists claiming Allah is like bigfoot and is a delusion might make Muslims fly off the handle and start beating people up, so they say that in the interest of preventing a breach of the peace, Dawkins and his group have to restrict themselves to the predominantly Christian neighborhoods, who don't get violent over these sorts of things (even though it deeply offends many of them).

[Forty Two]

...
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.