Sue Bolton at anti-Wilders protest

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.


The Left and pro-"Palestine" groups combine to condemn criticism of Islamic doctrine and the critic of doctrine to be motivated by "racism". Criticism of Islam is equated, bizarrely, with "pro-Zionism".

In early 2013 Geert Wilders visited Australia to lecture on Islam. As a result protests were organised by the Students for Palestine. Protesters equated criticism of Islam with Palestinians; with the claim being made that criticism of Islam is racist. Sue Bolton, a socialist councillor, joined in the protest.

In a video posted on Youtube made by the Green Left, Socialist Councillor Sue Bolton is protesting outside the venue where Geert Wilders was due to speak about Islam.

Bolton bundles together a number of unrelated issues and protests over them; she equates the "working class" with a protest that is meant to be about racism because criticism of the religious doctrine of Islam, a religion, is claimed to constitute criticism of "race".

The video includes placards that proclaim that criticism of Islam is racist. 

Very near the end Bolton starts the chant "Racism no way, we're gonna fight it all the way".

This chant is taken up by another of the protestors on a megaphone and the crowd then chants the same message. The camera pans past former Yarra councillors/candidates Anthony Main and Mel Gregson, as well as past Alex Sproule.

This point is relevant in our situation:

Wilders criticises Islam by quoting Islamic doctrine, the Koran, and for this, over a document that is of no race he is called "racist".

The Koran is not brown or white or black, it is a book, not a race. And followers of the precepts prescribed by the Koran are not prevented from either believing them or following them on condition that they have to satisfy some criterion of needing to be brown or white or black. That is, race is not a criterion for selection to be Muslim; the Koran is not a race. 

The protest against Wilders was organised by Students for Palestine organisation. That is, in a lecture in which the doctrinal elements of Islam are discussed, the issue of Palestine and Israel and "occupation" become the catalyst for the protest over Wilders. 

This happened to us during our exhibition Humanist Transhumanist in 2009 where the gallery owner, Robert Cripps, objected to criticism of Islam. He declared that criticism of Islam unfairly portrayed Muslims as the perpetrators of violence in Palestine, a topic that was not mentioned anywhere in the exhibition. Cripps' claim was that quotes from the Koran would cause a reader to blame Muslims for conflict in Palestine and not Jews (admitting that he hated Jews and that this was racist, and that he was a racist). And, to reiterate, the context of the criticism I made was with regards to religion and religious values versus values we arrive at by the application of our reason. My criticism was of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, as well as Islam, and not just Islam. But only criticism of Islam was claimed to constitute "racism".

The objective of those who turn criticism of Islam into an issue of racism turns out to always be the same; such criticism intends to prevent knowledge of what the Koran (and the hadith) urge followers to do, which in Islam is a legal obligation, Sharia. If knowledge of the Koran or the hadith is suppressed, and the only religious text one is familiar with is the Bible, then, the source of violence will be sought in the Bible, specifically, the Old Testament. The objective to not having Islam criticised is to allow for only the Jews to be criticised. This is racist: such people hate Jews and only want to blame Jews and call for the suppression of information that would expose the racism behind their stance.

With regards to Sue Bolton's protest in this instance, she champions her (her party's) stance against a Nazi bookshop that had opened in the electorate (or neighbouring electorate?) some time in the past. This she equates to her stand against Geert Wilders. 

However, the Nazis allied themselves to Islam and among the Nazis was al Husseini, an Arab Muslim. Arab-language Nazi radio used the passages of the Koran to incite hatred against the Jews, in the way that Hitler used biblical passages in his Mein Kampf, and in his speeches against Jews. Geert Wilders criticises the passages that I too criticise, and both he and I are deemed “racist”, even though my criticising the Biblical basis of Hitler’s actions and beliefs is considered a deserved criticism of Judaism and Christianity.

Muslims and Nazi have a shared objective

Sue Bolton supports Muslims. However, Islam's cause is to commit genocide of the Jews. Bolton also campaigns against Nazis (in the form of a Nazi bookshop). However, the Nazis, like her, supported Muslims and their objectives.

Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, facing German Christian Nazi Hitler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis? 

Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, shaking hands with German Christian Nazi Himmler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis?

Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but agitates against Nazis. The headline to the article above: "Nazism, Islam shared common enemies - the Jews".

Islam and Nazism share a common goal

"NEW YORK – A newly released report by the US National Archives details the close collaborative relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, indicating that Nazi authorities planned to use Husseini as their leader after their conquest of Palestine." ( http://www.jpost.com/International/Nazism-Islam-shared-common-enemies-the-Jews ) 

Al Husseini is a Nazi war criminal who evaded prosecution at Nuremberg.

"The report, Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, US Intelligence and the Cold War, was prepared on the basis of thousands of documents declassified under the 1998 Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act." (The US report is free as a pdf. It is compelling reading. Yes, I printed it, saved a copy, and have read it.)

Sue Bolton was acting in concert with Students for Palestine (she is friends on Facebook with others associated with Students for Palestine). She supports the cause of “Palestinians”, but so too did Hitler, a Nazi… and she condemns Nazis. Hitler praised "Palestinians" for fighting "World Jewry"before the existence of Israel.

In 2009 I, an atheist critiquing Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism was declared "racist" for critiquing Islam. The person who made this accusation claimed that it was "insensitive to Palestinians" and that it would make the Jews victims of Muslims, and he would rather believe it was otherwise. To date we have encountered various levels of incredulity to the notion that a critique of religion, in which Islam is but one of a number of religions critiqued, could de-evolve into a discussion about Jews in Palestine. After-all we don't mention this conflict anywhere. So, how, or for what purpose, and on what grounds could "Palestine" enter into any debate?

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

Socialist councillor candidate assaults Wilders audience

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.

Socialist councillor candidate assaults Wilders audience

In Australia criticism of Islam is equated to "pro-Israel" as if one is a corollary of the other. Criticising intolerance is claimed as being intolerant oneself; and criticism of the calls for doctrinal violence is turned into an accusation that the critic is advocating the violence that they condemn. 

Adolf Hitler used a similar ploy in Mein Kampf in which he decried a "Jewish plot" to take over the world - when the Jews had no such "plot" - but at the same time declaring that  territorial expansion of Germany was a German right that Germans would pursue by force-of-arms. 

Obviously the tactic of condemning your adversary for pursuing a line of action that you, and not they, pursue, still works!

In early 2013 Geert Wilders came to lecture in Melbourne Australia. His criticism of Islam drew protests from the political left and Pro-Palestinian groups who associated criticism of Islam to being "pro-Zionist" and "racist". The pro-Palestinian left protestors physically attacked those who came to hear Geert Wilders speak. 

Above. Still from Australia's ABC TV video. One of the anti-Wilders protestors, Anthony Main, former City of Yarra councillor and Yarra Socialist candidate grabs an attendee who is attempting to enter the Wilders lecture. This attendee is thrown to the ground by Anthony Main.

Protests were organised against Wilders' criticism of Islam. The claim made was that he is racist to criticise Islam and that it is racist to criticise the deeds done by Muslims who follow those doctrines that are criticised. The group who organised the protest against Wilders were a pro-Palestinian group. This pro-Palestinian group claim that criticism of Islam equates to being pro Israel, and that this is racist. 

At my exhibition opening in 2009 part of my exhibition included criticism of religious values. Criticism was made of the doctrinal elements of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism. This was publicly and loudly declared "racist" by the gallery owner Robert Cripps because my criticism included criticism of Islam. Cripps claimed that criticism of Islam was racist because it affects who an observer would perceive to be the victim and who they would perceive to be the aggressor in "Palestine", even though "Palestine" was not referenced anywhere in the exhibition. Cripps claimed that Muslims were the victims of Jews. 

By exposing Islam's doctrinal sources it could be shown that the conflict in "Palestine" is a religious war declared unilaterally by Islam and waged by Muslims based on hatreds which are integral to Islamic doctrine. These doctrinal elements are fundamental to the charters of the PLO and the Hamas Covenant which cite them and, in the instance of Hamas, which cites doctrine (the Koran) as their constitution. "Palestinians" can be allowed to wage a religious war with impunity only for as long as the doctrinal basis for this war is off limits for discussion and analysis.

Why "Palestine" would arise in the absence of mention of the conflict in "Palestine" in the exhibition has caused me an apparent difficulty, even though the necessity by Muslims to keep doctrine from becoming known is itself self-evident. I apparently have to explain this.

Reference to Islamic doctrine can be limited in a number of ways, including calling the critic "racist". This state's notorious Religious Vilification Act, or "defamation of religion" laws, have in the past been used to achieve this aim.

The protest against Wilders was set up on Facebook. One of the associates of the protest proclaimed that the intention of protest was so that Wilders would only be comfortable to lecture in Israel. The claim: Israel is racist and is the only country that would have no problem with criticism of Islam.

Above a Miriyam Asfar. Screenshot of the discussions on Facebook organising a protest against Wilders. Asfar associates Wilders' criticism of Islamic doctrine with something that Israel alone would support. Though criticising Islam has no relationship with Israel, critics of Islam are attacked as "pro-Israel" by pro-Palestinian groups ( http://www.facebook.com/events/444325985640116/?ref=3 ). 

Sawsan Hassan, above, commenting on the organising of the meeting to protest Wilders' lecture critical of Islam. Here criticism of Islam is claimed to be “Pro Zionist”, and “racist”. According to this Zionism is racism and only Zionists critique Islam, and anyone who critiques Islam is therfore a Zionist and racist ( http://www.facebook.com/events/444325985640116/?ref=3 ).  

When organising an earlier anti-Geert Wilders protest in Melbourne, Wilders was associated with Israel; his profile is juxtaposed against an Israeli flag in the background. 

The protest against Wilders included calls to "end the blockade" and to "free Palestine". On what rational grounds is criticism of Islam a corollary to supporting a blockade? and what has it to do with the “Palestine” issue?

Leftists: the New Left

The protest against Wilders was organised by Students for Palestine and supported by Leftist organisation such as the Socialist Alternative. 

Those who protested against Wilders were “left-wing”, and anti-Israel. Below, a screenshot of those confirming their intention to protest on Facebook. Confirming her attendance is Mel Gregson, Yarra Socialist candidate. The page organising the protest is made public by Sue Bolton (which can be seen in the earlier screenshot) who is a socialist councillor and is listed as “maybe” attending. Also listed is Azlan ( Az ) McLennan who has previously campaigned against Israel.

Above, Mel Gregson and Anthony Main, both from the Yarra Socialists. 

Below, the Yarra Socialists how-to-vote card for the council election 4 months earlier.

In the ABC (Australia) video (former) City of Yarra councillor, Anthony Main can be seen at the 32 sec. mark manhandling an attendee; and at the 1:06 - 1:16 mark Anthony Main physically throws an attendee to the ground! Beside Main is Alex Sproule who assists Main in throwing an attendee to the Wilders lecture to the ground. It is Sproule who is place in a headlock by police and removed. However, it was not these protestors who were accused of violence, but the people against whom violence was meted!

Beside Anthony Main is another Yarra Council candidate (no.2 on the Yarra socialist's election ticket)  Mel Gregson. According to Mel Gregson, criticising Islam is to "racially vilify people". Somehow, to criticise religion, to criticise a doctrine that is without colour, and without race, is to have criticised a race.

Comment 1 on Mel Gregson claim: "To Racially Vilify People"

Gregson's accusation that the criticism of a doctrine that has no race constitutes the vilification of those who hold the tenets of doctrine to be true, is a common one. As was the finding in the 2006 Appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria in the "Catch the Fire" case, judges Nettle et al concluded that the concept of claiming to be vilified because an idea they hold is criticised by another, would end in the shutting down of the ability to criticise any idea at all. There would in effect be no right to the criticism of any ideas, or the expression of any ideas lest they cause any person holding a contradictory idea offence or embarrassment. To use an example; had Charles Darwin been subject to such a rule he would have been guilty of vilifying Christians; evolution demonstrated that the Christians were not made in the image of God and they may have been insulted by being reduced to being mere animals, and this would have caused them offence; or they may have been embarrassed for being suggestible enough to have accepted the Biblical account as true.

Comment 2 on Mel Gregson claim: "To Racially Vilify People"

I suspect that Gregson is not Muslim, so it makes it surprising  that she would proclaim the Islamic mantra that all people are born Muslim which makes it a "racial" characteristic of theirs to be Muslim; meaning that religion is claimed to be something  that we are all born with. 

Islam's position is contrary to the long-running Christian debate on whether an unbaptised baby dies a sinner if it dies unbaptised as we are born with no faith. 

Gregson must have been availed some insight regarding the hereditary "religion characteristic" and the mechanism by which this hereditary trait can be passed on and inherited (without it needing to be introduced or taught to the child by the parent or guardian). Hopefully she can one day enlighten us on this.

In Islam every individual is born Muslim (hadith). And according to Islam we cannot be "compelled" to another religion (Koran & hadith). According to Islam being baptised constitutes "compulsion", that is: a third party (parent/priest) has declared us to be of a religion that we are not. Above, one of the hadith that proclaim we are all born Muslim. This particular hadith is “tafsir”, a gloss to a Koranic verse that explains its meaning.

The hadith claiming that we are all born Muslim appears on the Wikpedia definition for “fitra”; being our uncorrupted state/condition that we are all born with. As Islam claims this is a characteristic that we are born with, the corollary becomes a claim that it is racist to criticise a biological component which like the colour of our eyes, or hair, or skin, we have no say. I do wonder though; why, despite being born Muslim, do Muslims have to learn the Koran? shouldn't they be born with it?

(NOTE:  Muslim propagandists use this “no compulsion” claim to proclaim that Islam is tolerant of those not Muslim, and that it means that Islam recognises that a religion cannot be forcibly imposed.  This claim is false, and its falsity is made incontrovertible with regard to Islam’s stance on apostasy which is punishable by death. Killing those who convert from, or abandon Islam is not tolerance; remaining Muslim out of fear of being killed is compulsion.)

Who was there?

Azlan McLennan. Az McLennan confirmed on Facebook that he was going (earlier screenshot). Az McLennan has previously campaigned against Israel using principles on how to conduct a successful propaganda campaign as was articulated in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (nazi melbourne  http://www.vakras.com/nazi-melbourne.html  :"The function of propaganda... [is] that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc." "All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower the purely intellectual level will have to be."(3) "Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth... its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly."p. 166, Mein Kampf.

Azlan McLennan's anti-Israel propaganda piece as photographed by myself in 2004 before it was closed down.

Sue Bolton. Sue Bolton making her speech which is posted on Youtube.

Below, Sue Bolton and Alex Sproule listed as "maybe" on Facebook

Mel Gregson, Anthony Main, Alex Sproule, Yasemin Shamsili

Mel Gregson, Anthony Main, Darren Roso, Yasemin Shamsili

Darren Roso, Alex Sproule, above.

Below, Darren Roso invited, but did not confirm attendance on Facebook.

The question recurs: why does criticism of Islam bring out those who promote “Palestine” as an Israeli atrocity ?

Why does criticism of Islam mean that "Palestine" has to be raised?

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

The case against Soutphommasane - who is really tolerant?

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.


Soutphommasane, pictured below, is an academic and journalist who writes as an apologist for Islam in the Melbourne tabloid newspaper "the Age". 

In his recent article ostensibly criticising Geert Wilders, Soutphommasane:

1) by way of his condemning critics of Islam who differentiate between an idea and an individual holding an idea, defames judges by calling their reasoning racist;

2) supports Female Genital Mutilation, which is banned by the UN, and which is actively campaigned against by the World Health Organisation, and on which Geert Wilders spoke out against; 

3) praises the violent actions of objectors to Geert Wilders who pushed to the ground prospective attendees to his lecture in which Soutphommasane deems such actions to be a demonstration of "tolerance".

The Soutphommasane article appeared in Melbourne's Age newspaper 25/2/2013, and, in part, reads:

"

… the virtue of toleration [is to] put it plainly [that] we have to put up with things we may find repugnant. We have to tolerate the intolerable.

For the vast majority of us, Wilders' views belong to this category. He believes Islam is ''a dangerous totalitarian ideology'' that is incompatible with liberal freedom. The prophet Muhammad was, he argues, ''a warlord, terrorist and paedophile''.
According to Wilders…[a]ny accommodation of Islam will ultimately deprive us of ''our freedom, our identity, our democracy, our rule of law, and all our liberties''.
Not nearly enough has been said about our liberal toleration of Wilders.
For all of their talk about liberal freedoms, Wilders and his ilk are profoundly illiberal. They endorse free speech, but fail to accept this means those who disagree with them have the freedom to denounce them too. They speak highly of a free society, yet forget that a liberal state must not dictate its citizens' religious convictions.
Let's not mince words. Wilders and his... supporters are proponents of a thinly veiled form of racism. It's the sort you hear from the sly bigot who says he hates Asians or Jews or Muslims - but only in the abstract.

"

The article, screenshot above with comments.

The Age describes their author as a "philosopher", despite his hopelessly flawed "logic". I begin with "tolerance".


ON TOLERANCE

Toleration of the intolerable is to be intolerant; that is, only an intolerant person will tolerate intolerance.

Example: to have tolerated Nazi intolerance would have meant to tolerate the Nazis extermination of non-German "races".  To not tolerate the Nazis cannot be defined as being intolerant.

Karl Popper, unlike Soutphommasane, is a genuine philosopher.

Popper on tolerance:

"the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

ON ISLAM
Soutphommasane is condemning as "Wilder's view" a description of Islam and Mohammed that is in no way divergent from any accepted description, including that found on the government supported Islamic websites. 

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Mohammed as a "warlord". According to the Wikipedia (cited because it is readily available to anyone): "Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎), was a religious, political, and military leader...". It is not Wilder's view to describe Mohammed as a "warlord"; it is what Mohammed actually was, and it is undisputed. 

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Islam as a "total system" ("totalitarian"). Again from the Wikipedia: 

"Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], 'legislation'; sp. shariah, sharīʿah; also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the ... religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. [and] is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh). There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah."


It is not Wilder's view that Islam is a TOTAL system; it is known to be total and this is not in dispute.

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Mohammed as a "pedophile" (which I do not think Wilders did on this occasion). As for Mohammed being a "pedophile", again from the Wikipedia:

"According to traditional sources, Aisha [one of Mohammed's wives] was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated..."

Mohammed's marriage to a prepubescent girl and consummation of his marriage to her is a recurring element in the hadith (see below). 

And Soutphommasane should have no difficulty in accessing the hadith in printed form;  they are studied at Monash University, the university he is associated with, see below

According to the DSM the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Mohammed would qualify as a pedophile, see below.

According to Soutphommasane Wilders, by simply saying nothing more than what is already known, which is not in dispute, and which is repeated in, for instance sources such as the the Wikipedia, is "hateful" and "illiberal" and "vile"! If Wilders can be declared vile, then so too should that epithet be used to describe the Wikipedia.


As Soutphommasane intends to prevent commentary on what  he does not want to be known or want to be discussed, his article is intended to suppress liberal freedoms he claims to be celebrating by defaming any prospective critic.

ON TOLERANCE OF CRITICISM AND "LIBERALISM"

This really makes no sense. Soutphommasane states: "Wilders and his ilk are profoundly illiberal...but fail to  accept this means those who disagree with them have the freedom to denounce them too." 

No supporter of Wilders has demanded the right to spare Wilders from criticisim. Soutphommasane fails to provide substance to this bizarre statement. Those who attended the Wilders convention were prevented from entering, were grabbed and wrestled to the ground, were pushed, physically assailed, had their tickets taken from them, in order to intimidate them and prevent them from exercising their right to the freedom to hold an opinion or to impart and receive information.  

It was those who disagreed with Wilders who are illiberal. And it was those who disagreed with Wilders who were violent, see below

IT WAS THE ANTI-WILDERS PROTESTERS WHO WERE VIOLENT

it was they who physically obstructed entry and pushed people attempting entry to the ground

iT WAS THE ANTI-WILDERS PROTESTERS WHO WERE PLACED IN A HEADLOCK BY POLICE 

because of their pushing people to the ground

Those of the ilk of Soutphommasane consider that it is acceptable that violence is done against those whose views they do not agree with; however, those of the ilk of  Soutphommasane would consider such acts to be actions of  intolerance if they were undertaken against them. Soutphommasane demonstrates a failure in logic actuated by an obvious malice. (That is: the facts - evidence - is so incontrovertible, that the only way anyone could write what Soutphommasane does would be if they were actuated by malice or if they were stupid.)

ON VEILED "RACISM" BY CRITICISING IDEAS


In 2006 the Supreme Court of Victoria established that the criticism of an idea held by an individual cannot be said to vilify the person holding that idea as it would create an impossible burden to any right to criticise any ideas at all and would therefore limit free speech. 

The case in question:
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006).

Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked:
"There must be intellectually a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them...Are you saying it's impossible to incite hatred against a religion without also inciting hatred against people who hold it?" (The Age, 22/8/2006)

In the judgement given, the judges decided on the question thus:
 "33 ... It is essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view." (Judgement available on Austlii)
Meaning that criticism of Islam, is a separate issue.

Tim Soutphommasane's illogical premise is that we should not criticise ideas as a matter of "tolerance" and supports a restriction of the rights to criticise ideas. On the absence of a complaint being made to the state Human Rights commission he then claims that it is a demonstration of "our tolerant society" that allows for the criticism of ideas. The problem with Soutphommasane's bizarre assertion here is that there is no legal basis for any complaint to have been made at all because of the 2006 ruling; no complaint could have been made!

And it is with reference to the 2006 ruling, that it was found that  there must be a distinction between the ideas held by an individual and the individual holding them. Criticism of Islam, its doctrines, is legitimate, and it does not equate to a veiled hatred of Muslims.

Soutphommasane is imputing that Justices NETTLE, ASHLEY and NEAVE, JJ.A, are racists who propounded their judgement as a thinly veiled form of racism by making the same "veiled" racist distinction! 

Notes

Soutphommasane is a "political philosopher" from Monash University (below).

As is pointed out by Melbourne journalist, Andrew Bolt,  Monash University has a history of supporting racists who hate Jews (below). Perversely, those whose religious doctrine is nothing but hatred, and who propound and incite the hatred demanded by their religious doctrine are beyond criticism. However, those who criticise the hatred of the religious are denounced as hateful for doing so.  

Undercover Mosque, recorded secretly in UK  mosques. Muslims supported hatred of non-Muslims and that violence should be undertaken against non-Muslims, and championed as a Muslim's right to wed a pre-pubescent and consummate such a marriage as that is what "the prophet did".

Wilders did nothing more than confirm what was presented in the UK documentary Undercover Mosque. In this documentary recorded secretly in UK  mosques, Muslims supported the ideas that Wilders identified and was criticised and over which he was called “racist”. In the UK the documentary producers were charged with defamation. The Crown Prosecutors who took the documentary makers to court on behalf of the "aggrieved" Muslims were forced to retract their claim and apologise to the documentary makers.

(Note: for whatever reason, "Blogger" has taken over some font sizes! and I have no control over them!)

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

Yasemin Shamsili lies

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.


How can an association of "racism" ever be made in the criticism of doctrine?  what purpose could such an association serve? what logic could justify an association of doctrine with race? and why would any such association involve "Palestine"?

Yasemin Shamsili, spokesperson for Students for Palestine, above, supports violence undertaken against those with whom she disagrees. Yasemin Shamsili is pro-"Palestinian", and a liar. Students for Palestine is a university student union, which like the univertsity student unions of early 20th century pre-Nazi Germany, is making the hatred of Jews "respectable" and "rational". "Palestinians" wage a war guided by Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) against Jews. To prevent blame from being attributed to the "Palestinians" who are guided by Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) Students for Palestine denounce critics of Islamic doctrine as "racists".

In 2009 on the opening night of my exhibition Humanist Transhumanist, in which I critiqued religion, I was described as "racist" by Robert Cripps, pictured, because I included in my critique of religion, criticism of Islam. Other religions critiqued, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, though, were not deemed "racist" by Cripps.

Robert Cripps, pictured above, was the owner of the failed Guildford Lane Gallery.

Cripps' claim was that criticism of Islamic doctrine constituted "racism". He said it was because, as he admitted, he hated Jews; and that the quotes from the Koran made it evident (at least to him) that Jews are victims of Muslims vis-a-vis Palestine, despite no reference to "Palestine" being made anywhere in the exhibition in any form what-so-ever. Cripps wanted it to be otherwise. People like Cripps would rather blame the Jews for a conflict called for by a religion, Islam, in which a believer's duty is a "human right" to act in the way prescribed by doctrine. People such as Cripps, motivated by their hatred, have to have mention of and reference to, Islamic doctrine suppressed. They would rather hate the Jews and blame them.  

If quotes from the Koran (c. 650 AD) or the hadith (c. 850 AD) can be suppressed, then those who, because they are racist and hate Jews, can claim to have a justified hatred of the object of their hatred, Jews,  vis-a-vis the "Palestine" issue ….an issue which came about after  the creation of Israel (in 1948 AD), even though the doctrinal urgings followed by Muslims with regards to the "Palestine question" predate Israel by well over a millennium. That is, such people are racist, and can only blame Jews if they can suppress  open discussion of  Islamic doctrine. 

Islamic doctrine calls for the genocide of the Jews (as per hadith dating to c. 850 AD). "Palestinians" pursue perpetual war against Jews and do so as a religious duty, a duty that is openly proclaimed, by, for example, Hamas. The Hamas Covenant of 1988 AD is based on, and consistent with, the Koran and the hadith. Hamas unequivocally states:

"Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty:

Article Fifteen:

It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem , and should be dealt with on this basis."

There is no ambiguity. This is a war demanded by Islamic doctrine as a Muslim's religious duty. Israel has nothing to do with it, other than its existence causes Islam affront. However, Jews can successfully be blamed for a religious war waged against them by making taboo any and all references to the Koran and the hadith. Suppression of knowledge of Islamic doctrine is successfully accomplished by calling "racist" those who might make available to others knowledge of the contents of the Koran, or the hadith. 

PRO-PALESTINAINS, the case against Yasemin Shamsili; how to make false accusations.

An effort supported and sanctioned by the different apparatus of the state in Australia (which includes the universities and courts) intend to limit criticism of Islam to allow for blame regarding "Palestine" to be apportioned to Jews. 

The "question of Palestine", though irrelevant, arises whenever criticism of Islam is made. It did so recently in Melbourne in 2013, and it did so during our exhibition in 2009. If you prevent people from knowing what is written in the Koran or the hadith, then the people will make decisions on what they already do know, the Old Testament, and conclude that "the war in Palestine" is symptomatic of the Jew's need for "Old Testament vengeance" which is how Adolf Hitler put it.

Yasemin Shamsili, above, blames the violence of her own supporters on those against whom the violence was done.

Yasemin Shamsili, (whose name appears as Yasmin Shamsil in theTV footage, in the still above) is an exemplar of the kind of person who would prefer that knowledge of Islam, the Koran, and the hadith be suppressed so that she can hold onto her hatred of Jews; that is, Islam calls for the genocide of Jews and "Palestinians" are acting toward achieving this end; and people like Shamsili support the "Palestinians" and their cause; Shamsili is therefore a racist and a liar: she holds on to her racism by attempting to restrict criticism of Islam by calling criticism of Islamic doctrine which has no race "racist", and then lies about her own associates who though perpetrating the violence she proclaims to instead be "victims". From the ABC TV Lateline transcript of the audio to the video:

"YASMIN SHAMSIL, STUDENTS FOR PALESTINE: We were just standing there while actually, like, a number of people were charging at us, are hurting us. There are actually people in here with bloody noses and these are all the demonstrators who are actually just peacefully trying to raise awareness of the fact that we oppose Islamophobia and all the things that Geert Wilders and the people who come to Geert Wilders' event preach." ( http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3694073.htm )

above, still from anti-Geert Wilders protest posted on YouTube.  Shamsili of the "Students for Palestine" group can be seen between Yarra Socialists Gregson and Main. Gregson was invited to the Students for Palestine protest via Facebook and had accepted.

above, still from anti-Geert Wilders protest posted on YouTube showing Shamsili of the Students for Palestine yelling.  Yarra Socialist Main (fore) and Sproule (rear). Alex Sproule was invited by Students for Palestine to attend the protest on Facebook. His response to this invitation was "maybe". 

The footage clearly shows Shamsili standing alongside Yarra Socialist Party members, and Yarra Council candidates obstructing entry to those seeking to attend the Geert Wilders speech. 

It was Sahmsili's associates who were forcibly removed by the police, not the people who came to hear Wilders.

Shamsili has lied and blamed the victims for what her associates did.

It is the associates of Shamsili who are filmed charging at, and pushing, prospective attendees to the ground. It is the protesters who obstruct the path of the prospective attendees. It is the group Shamsili is with who are doing the “hurting” to others. 

The violence condemned by Shamsili is the violence perpetrated by her own group.

Shamsili herself can be seen yelling at people. Shamsili is NOT "just standing there" as passive observer.  By grabbing people and throwing them to the ground, the demonstrators do not constitute a definition of "just peacefully trying to raise awareness” as Shamsili claims.  

Shamsili is supporting the use of violence against people who were clearly not violent, by claiming that the perpetrators of the violence are instead the victims of the violence.

The footage from ABC TV (Australia) also appears on the ABC News site. Appended to the same footage is the following summary:

"A large group of angry protesters has scuffled with people attending a Melbourne speech by controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders... about 200 protesters wrestled with those trying to access the venue at Somerton, in the city's north. The demonstrators took guests' tickets and pushed them to the ground." ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/clashes-ahead-of-geert-wilders27-speech/4528388 )

Protesters wrestling those trying to access the venue cannot accurately be described as wrestling “with” each other. This was one group acting against another who were its victims.

The objective in Sahmsili's exercise,  is evident by what transpired and the lies told  by her on behalf of the Students for Palestine in which violent acts are undertaken and then blamed on the group they attacked, accusing them of  being violent instead. The readiness shown to accept that critics of Islam are violent because violence is used against them is seriously disgraceful, and shows that there is a willingness to hate simply for the sake of it.

Shamsili is no stranger to anti Jewish rallies. She partook in a rally organised by the Students for Palestine that marched from RMIT to the State Library, in which her associate, known as “Delinquent” referred to those against whom she campaigned as “vermin”, reminiscent of anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda.

Though Geert Wilders' speech concerned Islam, his opponents such as Miriyam Asfar (above), who appears to share some role in the organising of the anti-Wlders protest, claims that the intention of protest are to isolate Wilders internationally so that he will only ever feel comfortable in Israel. Why is criticism of Islam seen as proclamation of "pro-Israel"?  Obviously such protests intended to prevent any investigation of the role of Islam has as the source of violence because such people believe that only the Jews should be blamed and be vilified. The Students for Palestine and their supporters are racists.

---

The accusation of “racist” used against anyone criticising Islam - has become de rigueur in countries such as Australia and England.

Cripps, like the “Students for Palestine” protestors, made accusations such as those made by Shamsili, in which he alleged “heated exchanges” occurred between he and us. Like the Students for Palestine it did not matter that it was he alone who was heated, angry and aggressive. Our dispassionate, rejection of his allegations however have been misrepresented, in the same manner as the Students for Palestine group, who misrepresented the target of their anger as being co-perpetrators simply because they were on the receiving end of aggression. 

There is a desire to label any critic of Islam to be predisposed to violent or aggressive behaviour; and so acting either violently or aggressively toward a critic of Islam is misrepresented as  being an attribute of both parties. Liars such as Robert Cripps and Yasemin Shamsili project their violence and hatreds onto others. And this country's  legal apparatus  has, to date, shown itself to be complicit.

NOTES

Yasemin Shamsili is, according to her Monash University "Academia" page a Department Member at Monash University and interested in  political philosophy (below):

Melbourne tabloid newspaper, "the Age" columnist, Soutphommasane is an accademic, and political philosopher at Monash University according to his Monash University page (see below). Soutphommasane wrote to criticise Wilders and praised as “tolerance” the actions of those protesting against Wilders who threw people to the ground.

When Adolf Hitler expressed "his" sentiments in Mein Kampf, they were the sentiments that had been made respectable by pre-Nazi German academics and university student unions. A similar path is being followed today in Australia by its own academics.

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar.