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.