Discussion:
Free Speech and Hate Speech
(too old to reply)
fasgnadh
2007-01-19 04:03:00 UTC
Permalink
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.

While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.

Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.


If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.

PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims. An
evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.

And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.

Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down... Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o

Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.

Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite. Who is next?

We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.

Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.

Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.

This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.

Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
of the KKK on the back and gives him a kiss of approval:

------------


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"


"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."


"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
vegemite
2007-01-19 04:50:54 UTC
Permalink
G'Day Fazzer,

Me cousin, Bruce, says G'Day too :-)
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims. An
evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.
And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.
100% with you on all the above Fazzer :-)
Post by fasgnadh
Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down... Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o
Mate, I know you never approved of me going to the fundy church
but yer off the rails a bit here.

Haven't met Naliah, but I know what he's talking about.
When a fundy preacher says the TAB or the pub or whatever is a Satanic
stronghold, he's not saying that Trev or Noelene or Marg or Uncle Brian
or the Kumars next door are Satan's little helpers or that we've got to
burn
down the building or whatever, what he's saying is that the business
has
been set up by Satan to do harm to Trev and Noelene and Marg and
everybody else.

In fact that would be the same as calling Jesus 'Satanic' 'cause Jesus
went to the pub
and had a brew or two as well. In fact that's what many of His enemies
did at the time
when Jesus popped down to the Jerusalem RSL for a steak sanger and a
pint: called
him 'Satanic'. I doubt Nahlia's unaware of that.

No, Nahlia thinks the business are operated by Satan but Marg an' that
are basically
OK normal people like you and Mrs Fazzer. (How is she anyrate - Oh by
the way, me
an' the missus have a little bloke now - you should see him wolf down a
Banana -
Guiness Book of records material there, mate :-))

I remember once some bloke in the great Usenet Outback said

" friends of mine have been tortured, and members
of their families killed in Iran.. by fundamentalist Muslims who were
absolutely certain they carried out "Gods will"...
wheras most of my spiritual training has been in Christian
communities... with nary a pogrom in sight.... '

That's modern-day Aussie Christianity, even amongst me and my fundy
mates. Nary a pogrom in sight. I would be amazed If Naliah was trying
to start one.

(Can see it now: Samara Jacobs - kid's chucrh teacher with her flamin'
Britney Spears perfume and Sportsgirl handbag frenziedly flaying at the

unyielding Sandstone walls of the local bottle-o 8^)

Mind you - American contemporary fundy Christianity with abortion
clinics...so yes,
it can happen anywhere. I wouldn't deny it. But Naliah attempting to
whip
one up in this case - as unlikely as Phar Lap winning the next three
Melbourne
Cups, mate.
Post by fasgnadh
Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.
Been though that, above, I think.
Post by fasgnadh
Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite. Who is next?
Well, I think its OK to *attack* beliefs in a Democracy
You're not allowed to *incite hatred* based on someone else's beliefs
I believe the courts made the correct decision to overturn the guilty
verdicts against Nahlia and Scot.
Post by fasgnadh
We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.
Too true, Fazzer.
Post by fasgnadh
Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.
Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.
This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Naliah got a raw deal in the original court case. If I could show that
was true
would you withdraw the KKK appellation you've lumbered him with here ?

Anyrate, I think that's about it. So I'm off like a bucket of
prawns..(Oh yeah,
speaking of seafood, actually caught my first fish for myself not so
long back.
An undersized Bream. Geez fishing is a lot more interesting when you
actually catch something :-)

Oo-roo!
vegemite
2007-01-19 05:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Fazzer:

Here's an idea:

If I can convince you that Nalliah and Scot got the rough end of the
pineapple
in their original conviction you will donate $10 to CatchTheFire legal
costs.

If I can't convince you I will donate $10 to any charitable cause you
name.

Whaddaya say ?

Oo-Roo!
<snip>
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Naliah got a raw deal in the original court case. If I could show that
was true would you withdraw the KKK appellation you've lumbered him with here ?
<snip>
Otter
2007-01-19 06:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
If I can convince you that Nalliah and Scot got the rough end of the
pineapple
in their original conviction you will donate $10 to CatchTheFire legal
costs.
If I can't convince you I will donate $10 to any charitable cause you
name.
Whaddaya say ?
You assume the fool has $10. If he had, you assume a willingness to give it
to charity.
Surgeon
2007-01-19 07:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otter
Post by vegemite
If I can convince you that Nalliah and Scot got the rough end of the
pineapple
in their original conviction you will donate $10 to CatchTheFire legal
costs.
If I can't convince you I will donate $10 to any charitable cause you
name.
Whaddaya say ?
You assume the fool has $10. If he had, you assume a willingness to give
it to charity.
Wasn't it payday at Centrelink yesterday?
fasgnadh
2007-01-19 10:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
If I can convince you that Nalliah and Scot got the rough end of the
pineapple
in their original conviction you will donate $10 to CatchTheFire legal
costs.
If I can't convince you I will donate $10 to any charitable cause you
name.
Whaddaya say ?
Sure Craig, if you can show where the finding based on this evidence
is wrong at law, I'll send $10 for you to buy something for your
banana muncher;

http://tinyurl.com/33e8nt


If not, I nominate the most needy charity cases to be rOtter and
Sturgeon to get $5 each, that's more than they make pimping their arse
in a month.
Post by vegemite
Oo-Roo!
<snip>
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Naliah got a raw deal in the original court case. If I could show that
was true would you withdraw the KKK appellation you've lumbered him with here ?
<snip>
--
------------


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"


"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."


"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
vegemite
2007-01-21 23:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Fazzer:

I just dropped a personal note to your yahoo email address.
I would appreciate it if you had a read of it, if you could.
Enticement - contains some of the beautiful poetry of Gwendolwn
MacEwen, which, not to deprive our usenet mates, I will post
another example of here:

['Let Me Make This Perfectly Clear, by Gwendolyn MacEwen]

Let me make this perfectly clear.
I have never written anything because it is a Poem.
This is a mistake you always make about me,
A dangerous mistake. I promise you
I am not writing this because it is a Poem.

You suspect this is a posture or an act
I am sorry to tell you it is not an act.

You actually think I care if this
Poem gets off the ground or not. Well
I don't care if this poem gets off the ground or not
And neither should you.
All I have every cared about
And all you should ever care about
Is what happens when you lift your eyes from this page.

Do not think for one minute it is the Poem that matters.
Is is not the Poem that matters.
You can shove the Poem.
What matters is what is out there in the large dark
and in the long light,
Breathing.

<snippo>

Best Regards,

Veg.
Otter
2007-01-21 23:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
I just dropped a personal note to your yahoo email address.
I would appreciate it if you had a read of it, if you could.
Enticement - contains some of the beautiful poetry of Gwendolwn
MacEwen, which, not to deprive our usenet mates, I will post
['Let Me Make This Perfectly Clear, by Gwendolyn MacEwen]
Let me make this perfectly clear.
I have never written anything because it is a Poem.
This is a mistake you always make about me,
A dangerous mistake. I promise you
I am not writing this because it is a Poem.
You suspect this is a posture or an act
I am sorry to tell you it is not an act.
You actually think I care if this
Poem gets off the ground or not. Well
I don't care if this poem gets off the ground or not
And neither should you.
All I have every cared about
And all you should ever care about
Is what happens when you lift your eyes from this page.
Do not think for one minute it is the Poem that matters.
Is is not the Poem that matters.
You can shove the Poem.
What matters is what is out there in the large dark
and in the long light,
Breathing.
<snippo>
Best Regards,
Veg.
Oh, dear, Veg! You think he's gay, don't you? It's a nice try, but the
fact of the matter is that he's not. Well, he's hardly normal, but he's not
gay.

He's a neuter. HTH
vegemite
2007-01-29 03:29:56 UTC
Permalink
---------------------------------------------------
Post #1: Nahllia Got The Rough End of the Pineapple
PART 1 OF 9
---------------------------------------------------

"Now please remember, we are not here learning how
to fight with Muslim, we are learning here how we
can love Muslims..."

- Daniel Scot, Catch the Fire Ministries seminar,
on 9 March 2002, later charged with inciting hatred
toward Muslims
From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/
2006/284.html
Supreme Court Of Victoria
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic
Council of Victoria
Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006)
(henceforth 'decison')

G'Day Fazzer:

This is the first post of a maximum of six in which
I will attempt to convince you that Danny Nalliah
and Daniel Scot's initial conviction by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal (later set aside
by the Victorian Supreme Court) was not warranted.

Now Fazzer, my reply is too long to fit all in one
post, so anticipating your permission, I will
split into sections, but count it all as one post.
I hope that OK by you. This first post has
nine sections

Orright, let's get the game underway:

------------------------------
What is a legal technicality ?
------------------------------
Fazzer said in thread "Why is Christian Hate speech
approved by the PM and other extremists?"
They appealed and the appeal court determined
on a technicality the case should be heard again!
...and in another thread
"Howard's values - tear down Satan's CUB, every hotel, the Cup,
Tattslotto and two-up!"
The verdict was not overturned, an appeal determined a
re-hearing on a technicality, not on the substance.
Fazzer states that the Victorian Supreme Court set aside the
original convictions against Nahllia and Scot on the basis of a
legal technicality.

I argue that the conviction was set aside on substantive points
of law.

So what is a legal technicality ?
Wikipedia provides a useful starting point:

"The term legal technicality is a casual or colloquial phrase
referring to a technical aspect of law. The phrase is not a term
of art in the law; it has no exact meaning, not does it have a
legal definition. The words "legal technicality" are often used
in a pejorative sense..."

Wikipedia then goes on to provide some examples of legal
technicalities:

"Some examples of technical aspects of legal procedure are:

- Time constraints, including Statutes of limitations
...
- Miranda Warning
- Rules of evidence
- Various immunities, such as Sovereign immunity, Diplomatic
immunity
- Rules of appellate procedure"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technicality

Fazzer appears to assert, then, that the reason that Nahllia and
Scot (hereafter 'The Pastors') succeeded in their appeal was due
to technical or procedural reasons unrelated to substantive points
of law or process but, rather, due to unimportant aspects of
process that provided The Pastors with unfair or unjust (albeit
legal) grounds to have their appeal succeed.

In regard to what Fazzer refers to as 'substance', above,
I think he is referring to the evidence presented in the case.

The VSC has not presented any opinion as to the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the original guilty verdict, but does
say that the Tribunal was incorrect in how it applied the law to
the case.

Through incorrect application of the law, the Tribunal made a
decision that cannot be sustained in law hence the original guilty
verdict cannot be sustained. The Tribunal has been told, nicely,
to try again and this time do it properly. Hence the VSC shows
that the Tribunal gave The Pastors the rough end of the pineapple;
an unjustified verdict.

------------------------------
Why The Appeal Succeeded
------------------------------
Let's look at the decision of the Supreme Court then and see
why it upheld the Pastor's appeal.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html
Supreme Court Of Victoria
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria
Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006) (henceforth 'decison')

The Court used substantive reasons of law when upholding The
Pastor's appeal, not technicalities. Here are the substantive
issues of law that led to the Victorian Tribunal making its
unjustified guilty verdict against The Pastors':

1) Tribunal mistaken in Use of the 'Kazak' test to determine
'ordinary reasonable reader'(Para. 12 in decision)

The Kazak test, which comes from defamation law, says to ignore
any special characteristics or proclivities to which the audience
or potential audience might be subject and to assess the matter
by reference to the standard of the "ordinary reasonable reader".
The VCSA opines that Kazak should not have been applied to the case
at hand and that the characteristics of the audience at the seminar
should be considered.

As the court said:
"In my view [Kazak] is not altogether apposite in relation to
s.8 of the Act... I do not accept that one should exclude from
consideration the nature of the audience to whom the conduct
is directed.

The idea of the "ordinary reasonable reader" belongs to the law
of defamation. It has as its object the protection of individuals
against false allegations calculated to lower them in the esteem
of their fellows.

Contrastingly, s.8 does not prohibit statements about religious
beliefs per se or even statements which are critical or
destructive of religious beliefs. Nor does it prohibit statements
concerning the religious beliefs of a person or group of persons
simply because they may offend or insult the person or
group of persons.

The proscription is limited to that which incites hatred or
other relevant emotion and s.8 must be applied so as to give it
that effect."
(Decision Paras. 13-15)

2) Tribunal mistaken in Use of 'Bropho' test to evaluate
discrimination 'on the grounds of religious belief'
(Para. 20, 21 in decision)

3) The 'Bropho' test is itself flawed and is based on a
minority judicial opinion from the case law it draws upon.

4) Tribunal's reasoning was flawed in original verdict:
a) Arising from the misuse of Bropho, the Tribunal
decided the case on the incorrect legal question
(decision para. 30, 32)
"In effect the Tribunal decided that the Seminar
contravened s.8 because the Tribunal was satisfied
that Pastor Scot was moved or caused by the religious
beliefs of Muslims to make the statements which he did
at the Seminar, and that an ordinary reasonable person
who was not malevolently inclined or free from
susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined by Pastor
Scot's statements to hate Muslims.

But, for the reasons which I have given, I do not
consider that that was the question which needed to be
decided.

In my view the question was whether, having regard
to the content of the statements in the context of the
whole of the Seminar, and to the nature of the audience
in the sense that I have described, the natural and
ordinary effect of what was stated was to encourage
the hatred of Muslims based on their religious beliefs."
(Decision Para. 30)

NB The VSC actually prescribes a _simpler_ test
of inciting hatred than VCAT which deems it irrelevant
_what caused_ Scot to make his statements. VSC says to
concentrate simply on whether or not hatred was
actually incited against Muslims.


b) Arising from the misuse of Bropho, the Tribunal did not
give a great deal of consideration to the distinction
between hatred of the religious beliefs of Muslims and
hatred of Muslims because of their religious beliefs.

As Justice Nettle said in the decision
"The Tribunal appears to me to have assumed that the
two conceptions are identical...In my view, that is not
so." (Para. 32)

This conception is supported by case law from the same
Tribunal that found The Pastors guilty, but was not used
in their case. (Para. 34)

c) By ignoring the relevant distinction between beliefs
and people, the Tribunal used an irrelevant criteria in
attempting to arbitrate the case, namely, whether or not
Pastor Scot's view of Islam was 'balanced'.

Justice Nettle again:
"Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of
persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced
and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere
to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the
religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly
true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain
to incite hatred..." (Para.35, 36)

d) The effect of VCAT arbitrating on Pastor Scot's 'balance'
or lack thereof was to preclude a great deal of testimony
that showed Scot ameliorated any perceived risk of
inciting
hatred by continually referring to the need to love Muslim
people (in distinction to their beliefs) (Para. 36)
More on this below.

e) In the nineteen specific instances cited by the VCAT as
showing that Pastor Scot had incited hatred toward Muslims
Nettle found Scot had been misquoted nine times and taken
out of context another nine.

In many cases the Tribunals quotations of Scot are
factually
erroneous. The Supreme Court decision repeatedly notes
'Pastor Scot DID NOT SAY...' in distinction to the
original
Tribunal verdict which opines 'Pastor Scot made the
following
statements...'

In relation to Pastor Scot's seminar then, The VCAT's
catalogue of supposed vilification becomes much smaller.
(decision Paras 38-62)

f) The VCAT said that a significant feature of the seminar
which led it to conclude that Scot had incited hatred
toward
Muslims was Scot's vocal tone, but the VSC did not concur:

Judge Higgins from the original VCAT guilty verdict:
"...what the audio does is to produce a fairly significant
alteration in the import of what was said by Pastor Scot...
Applying the objective test to which I have referred, I
have found the oral presentation is a significant step or,
more accurately, it is an important feature which
demonstrates that Pastor Scot has...engaged in conduct
that
incites hatred against...Muslims..."
(para. 380 in original VCAT verdict)


Judge Nettle, VSCA, disagrees:
"I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the
manner of Pastor Scot's delivery which rendered his
statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred or
other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. ...on any
analysis his plea to love Muslims and to "minister" to
them
comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his
audience's reaction to it." (decision Para. 63)

##### For The Fazzer No. 1 #####
Fazzer, the Victorian Supreme Court, on listening to the tape
finds evidence that the audience was incited to LOVE
Muslims,
not hate them, and that Scot appeared to make progress
toward that goal. Would you agree ?
#################################

h) Another effect of VCAT arbitrating on Pastor Scot's
'balance'
or lack thereof was to include irrelevant testimony. In
this
case, some testimony of the three Muslims who attended the
Seminar and made the complaint. The issue is not whether
some
Muslims were offended by the seminar, but rather, whether
or
not the persons at the seminar were incited to hatred of
Muslims (as distinct from their beliefs).

"...the question under s.8 is not whether the conduct offends
a group of persons but whether it incites hatred or other
relevant emotion of or towards that group of persons."

In this way, VCAT incorrectly applied case law emanating from
the Racial Discrimination Act. when making the original
guilty
verdict (decision, Para. 67)

5) Tribunal Incorrectly Disallowed section 11 provisions of the
Racial
and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.

This is the legislation that the Pastors were charged under and VCAT
found
them guilty under section 8.

Section 11 of the Act, however, provides that:
"A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person
establishes
that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good
faith-
(a) ...
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate
made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for-
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose;
or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event
or
matter of public interest."

VCAT, relying on Bropho, rejected the notion that Pastor Scot was
presenting his seminar in good faith, but VCSA says good faith was
present.

"...Contrary to the approach of the Tribunal, I do not accept that
the
test of bona fide and reasonably for the purposes of s.11 is the same
as
the test laid down by French, J. in Bropho.

Plainly enough, comparative religion and proselytism are both
"religious purposes" and, Accordingly, if, as in this case, a
defendant's alleged purpose is "to explain to Christian people
certain aspects of Islamic teaching and to encourage and equip
Christian believers to share their faith with Muslims",
then, subject to what follows, it is difficult to think that it would
not qualify as a "religious purpose".
(Decision Paras 89, 90)

------------------------------------
Summarizing Why The Appeal Succeeded
------------------------------------
VCAT in its original guilty verdict against The Pastors made
the following substantive errors:

1. Incorrect application of case law
a) Kazak Test Should Not Have Been Used
b) Bropho Test Should Not Have Been Used

The effect of misusing Kazak was to prevent VCAT from
considering special characteristics of the Audience at the
seminar in considering whether or not they had been
incited to hatred.

The primary effect of misusing Bropho was that:
c) Tribunal did not distinguish between hatred of the
religious beliefs of Muslims and hatred of Muslims because of
their religious beliefs.

2. Tribunal considered irrelevant evidence
a) Whether or not the Seminar was 'balanced'
b) Whether or not some persons were offended (the three Muslims)

This, last, i.e 2b, was an important step that led to the original
guilty verdict. From the VSC decision:

"...it is apparent that the evidence of the three Muslim witnesses
was material to the Tribunal's decision. Much later in the reasons
for decision, the Tribunal returned to the evidence of the three
Muslim witnesses and said, in its conclusions, that:
'I find that the evidence of the three lay witnesses is probative
of the fact, that what was said amounted to incitement.' That
statement
implies the Tribunal may not have come to the same conclusion if it
had understood that such evidence cannot be used for the purposes of
s.8 in the way in which Hely, J. said in Jones v. Scully that
it may be used for the purposes of s.18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975."

3. Tribunal did not consider relevant evidence
a) Scot's repeated statements about loving Muslims
and how, practically, to do so were completely discounted
by VCAT

4. Tribunal Misquoted Pastor Scot
a) VCAT makes factually wrong statements about what
Pastor Scot said in the Seminar. This means that at least
part of Scot's verdict was based on false testimony of VCAT's
own imagining!
b) All 19 specific instances of Pastor Scot's supposed
hatred-inciting statements were rejected by VSCA as
intended to incite hatred against Muslims.

5. VCAT 'Significant Evidence' Rejected
VCAT's assertion that Pastor Scot's vocal tone was
obvious evidence of the intention to incite hatred was
rejected by the VSCA. The VCAT itself said that the supposed
vocal tone was an important step in determining Scot's guilt.
Yet such tone is not apparent to the VSC, which found
the ton ewas sincere and supported Scot's assertion that he
was intending to encourage Australians to act of LOVE toward
Muslim people (not hate).

6. s.11 Exemptions Incorrectly Not Applied
By misusing Bropho, VCAT was unable to conclude that Pastor Scot
was acting 'in good faith' when presenting the seminar. This
prevented VCAT from being able to apply s.11 exemptions to the
case which may well have prevented a guilty verdict.

7. Relevant Case Law Not Applied
The VSC said that VCAT missed an ESSENTIAL legal aspect of
the case which is 'to keep the distinction between the
hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily
in view.'

The case law in question comes from the SAME VCAT tribunal
that found Nalliah guilty in a case which applied the SAME
legislation. The case is Robin Fletcher v. The Salvation Army
Australia Southern Territory General Work,
[2005] VCAT 1523 [7] and [8].

##### For The Fazzer No. 2 #####################################
Fazzer, do you agree that the reasons for the setting aside
of the VCAT guilty decision by the VSC are far more than mere
legal technicalities and amount to substantive legal and justice
reasons ?
################################################################

------------------------------------
Incitement To LOve Muslims
------------------------------------

The incorrect application of the Bropho test
by the VCAT resulted in Pastor Scot's evidence that he encouraged
his listeners to love Muslims being completely discounted by the VCAT.

Yet, the VSC found evidence from the Seminar audio that the audience
was incited to LOVE Muslims and were responding to that. More than
that the VSC found that VCAT and the Muslim complainants made no
reference
to a copious number of statements by Scot FAVOURABLE TO MUSLIMS and
to the effect that Christians should LOVE Muslims. (decision Para. 77)

Here's some of the evidence of the Incitement to Love that the VSC
heard on the audio tape:

Pastor Scot speaking from decision Para. 78
"...We say that we never do anything without prayer, but prayer is
not
the only thing we do. OK. We do everything with prayer, but practical
love is very important. I have heard so many strories in Australia
when people that have come out of detention centre and they have seen
l
ove of Christ in people, people have shared with them their
resources,
and their food and they have loved them, they have cared [for] them,
and so many Muslim, young Muslim, old Muslim, women, children they
have become Christian because they have seen practical love of
Christ.
It's very important. OK. So it's not just a theory, that you have
very good theory. No it's a practical thing, so you have to show
that practice."

"Jesus didn't say that 'Go and, and preach gospel
to all the nations'. Before He said that, He said, 'Love your
neighbour like yourself.' That was the first thing and then He
said, 'Go and preach gospel.' So we have to love them li...as
ourselves. In our neighbourhood, wherever they are in need,
we help them OK. Practical love. And then of course we started with
... Love... and love should be not only in theory, in word, but it
should be shown in practice. You invite them for cup of tea.
You invite them for dinner, for lunch. And you may go out for a cup
of coffee or something like that. So develop some relationship with
them and show hosptiatily. And these are practical things we need to
look at.

...

Now there are a few things we must not do when we are sharing gospel
with Muslim people. Let's look what are some of those things.
we need to be very sensible we must not speak negatively. They
don't want to hear anything against Mohammed, whether true or not.
.. That's very important, so we have to be very sensitive. But at
the same time I will never tell you that you tell lies to Muslim.
You are a Christian. If you are a Christian you should always tell
the truth but we need not to tell the whole story about Mohammed.
OK. So that's very important. You have to be respectful to them...
Then you should not criticise their faith.

...

Then of course do not criticize their culture. If you look d
own upon their culture, that's not good. So God has created all
cultures. God has no preference of one culture over another.
And we say that when Jesus comes in culture, He does not destroy
culture, but He transforms culture. So there is no culture better
than another culture. So we should not discredit their culture.

And then we should not criticise their dress. That's the way
they live. That's fine. And do not witness to, get emotionally
involved with opposite [sex] as I've explained that earlier.
...it's not good testimony to drink in front of a Muslim. So
you have to be very careful. OK. Similarly, if you do eat pork
at home, but if you are eating that don't offer that to a Muslim..."

So there is part of Pastor Scot's incitement to love Muslims, which
the VSC agrees forms just a small example of the MANY OTHER similar
exhortations in his talk.

Scot said the following further things in the
seminar in question:

"Now please remember, we are not here learning how to fight with
Muslim, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help
them to see the truth."

"Muslims are not our enemies; We love Muslims and hate their
wrong teaching."

"He wants to save every lost people because He loves every one of
them. Our God He loves sinners and He hates sin. Similarly, we do
love Muslim but we hate wrong teaching.

"We have to be very clear. Muslims are not our enemy they
need Jesus."

##### For The Fazzer No. 3, 4 ###################
Fazzer, do you agree that Pastor Scot, above is inciting
his audience to love Muslims ?

Fazzer, given the above, do you seriously believe
that Scot and Nalliah advocate the mob-fuelled, burning
and destruction of Mosques or the hatred and vilification
of Muslims ?
#################################################


Here are some additional statements made by Scot at VCAT
that show he does not advocate hatred and vilification of
Muslims and in fact advocates the reverse

"We have to love them...
Don't be afraid of (the) Koran...there are a lot of
things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible."

Above from:
"Toil and Trouble",
Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun
December Wednesday 20, 2006
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2006/12/19
/toil-and-trouble/#more-352

And from a publication tendered to VCAT by the complainants
with the original complaint, "An Insight into Islam
by Richard" which appeared on the Catch The Fire website

"I have personally met many Muslims who were far kinder
and nicer than a lot of Americans and non-Muslims that
I know"

"In other words, most Muslims really don't live out the
7th century cultural ideas of Islam's founder...They are
very much like what some people in America would call
'nominal Christians'. They believe in Islam because their
parents told them [it] is true, but have no real
knowledge [as] to its real specifics.

"You see, Muslims have consciences too that bear witness
to what is right and wrong."

"Again - this does not mean that every Muslim is a
terrorist or a murderer... I have met some wonderful
people in the Middle East that I miss even today."

"As Christians we are not called to hate Muslims."

"We are called to love Muslims with the love of Christ.
Love your Muslim friends and share with them the
true message of the love of God that is found in
Christ."
(All above quotes from Decision, para. 108)

And here, from Catch The Fire's Summer 2001 Newsletter
which was also tendered by the complainants as evidence
of Catch The Fire's 'vilification' of Muslims

"We need to love Muslims with all our heart,
However difficult it may be. I love them so much -
even though I almost lost my life and my family trying
to preach to them about Jesus in Saudi Arabia. "

Fazzer - the above seems a similar sentiment to that
expressed by your Grandmother who escaped the Bastinado
in Iran.

"Let's love the Muslim, let's reach them to Christ"

"As Christians we are not called to hate Muslims.
But we are called to discern what is true and false
and not to blindly accept beliefs that are destructive a
nd contrary to Jesus' life of love and justice."

(All above quotes from Decision, para. 109)

continued in Part 2.
fasgnadh
2007-02-11 03:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
---------------------------------------------------
Post #1: Nahllia Got The Rough End of the Pineapple
PART 1 OF 9
By definition Nalliah has not received the rough end of
a pineapple, he has received a hearing in an open, objective
forum, where he can present his case, and the outcome has
been an order that the hearing be held again because the tribunal
originally used the test of how would a 'reasonable person'
respond to the anti-Muslim incitement rather than how the Catch
on Fire Inc... Congregation would react.

Compare such careful and solicitous concern for a fair hearing
with the trial by media of Muslims, or the violence of the Cronulla
riots against a vulnerable religious minority, or Nalliah and Scott's
own stereotyping of Muslims.
Post by vegemite
---------------------------------------------------
"Now please remember, we are not here learning how
to fight with Muslim, we are learning here how we
can love Muslims..."
Really?

You learn how to Love Muslims by traducing them? How very odd.


And how many Muslims did you have present at the seminar
to receive this 'Love'? Just the ones who were shocked at the
lies, slander and misrepresentations, and deeply offended
by the ignorant dogma and stereotyping?

Here's an example of Danny's love in action;

"The article is entitled "2002 - Will Australia be a Christian
Country?". On the previous page he describes Muslims as
"the enemy" due to some incident which took place in Saudi Arabia."

http://tinyurl.com/33e8nt

So this is an example of the Christian commandment turned on it's head.
Christians speak of 'Loving your enemy' in Nahlia's case Love means
branding Aussie Muslims as 'the enemy' because of an incident in another
country altogether. The 'Dirty Jew' stereotype recycled with a new
target minority.

"He states, however, that Muslims obtain visas from the very countries
where Christians are being raped, tortured and killed. He then
asked his readers the following question: "What stops the Muslims
from doing the same in Australia?".

"Now bible tells us you know the truth; the truth will set you free
but Muslim people when they come to some teaching they don't like,
people you know they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the
truth they will hide the truth. They will tell lies"

And the classic racist xenophobia recycled since Sept 11;

“2020 – Will Australia be a Christian Country”
"While many Australians do not want to have children until
they are 35-40 years old, due to pursuit of their career
in life (some are even freezing their eggs in order to do so),
the Muslim has four wives and ten to twelve children per family.
While the population of Aussies is on the decrease, another
population is rapidly on the increase. Church, can you see it,
are you so blinded?”


It seems that in the website, pamphlet and seminars, Nalliah,
Scott et al have no trouble slandering ALL Muslims as 'liars',
'the Enemy', theirworship of God as Satanic, their mere breeding,
(following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply as a 'threat
to Aussies'.. AS IF A MUSLIM CAN'T BE AN AUSSIE!! 8^o

But once the case against them starts.. "We Love Muslims!" B^p

Sounds like the Gospel according to Pastor Pauline from the Book of
Hypocrites, if those ignorant and malicious slanders are the Catch on
Fire Inc's idea of Love, then please spare me from your affections.

We can continue with all the fine detail, but the picture of
vilification is clear to any fair minded person. Meeting the
legal requirements, as Jesus found in Pilate's hands, is another issue.

I would prefer the $10 to be decided by the re-hearing, so far the
legal process has offered an excellent opportunity to peel back this
festering pustulence, and examine AOG professions of Love in relation to
their actual practices.

If a decision is made not to proceed with the case, I will treat that as
a win for you, (but a fateful blow to the notion of Christian love for
one's neighbour.)
Post by vegemite
- Daniel Scot, Catch the Fire Ministries seminar,
on 9 March 2002, later charged with inciting hatred
toward Muslims
From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/
2006/284.html
Supreme Court Of Victoria
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic
Council of Victoria
Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006)
(henceforth 'decison')
This is the first post of a maximum of six in which
I will attempt to convince you that Danny Nalliah
and Daniel Scot's initial conviction by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal (later set aside
by the Victorian Supreme Court) was not warranted.
Now Fazzer, my reply is too long to fit all in one
post, so anticipating your permission, I will
split into sections, but count it all as one post.
I hope that OK by you. This first post has
nine sections
It's not a game.

There are people screaming "Kill the Dirty Yids"
and we have someone running seminars alleging all the lies,
deceit and dreams of world domination the 'Yids' harbour..
but do we hate them? Oh no, we have no malice in our hearts,
we are too good for such petty hates.. We love the 'Yids'
it is their filthy practices we condemn, and condemn and condemn!

I have scanned this post #1 of 9 and I find NOT A SINGLE
example of this 'Love' made manifest.

It is claimed, but lets measure the actions against those
words.

I will read the other 8, see how much 'Love' I find,
and let you know.

And then I will double the 10 dollars if you tell me
you see any evidence in the case you have made that this
PROFESSED "Love" is real.

Or just supports our image of how wonderful we are,
and how much those poor devils need our help.

And all that decided without actually meeting any of them! 8^o

Here is the token Muslim, he was a "Dirty Yid" but has converted,
and he has come among the folk to tell.. The Truth.. ah Yes, the
very essence of the Lord Jesus, about those he has turned away from..
lets see his balanced view, how he represents Muslims to his
audience, who have nothing to evaluate it against! But remember,
he will of course be fair and balanced, because he is talking about
people we "Love";

From the evidence presented:

"Now bible tells us you know the truth; the truth will set you free but
Muslim people when they come to some teaching they don't like, people
you know they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth they
will hide the truth. They will tell lies".

A "Christian" audience sits, hearing this, and makes no protest? 8^o

That is your "Love" ? a love for lies by one man claiming ALL of
1.8 Billion Muslims are liars?

I actually KNOW some Muslims. They are good people.

They have about the same ratio of virtues and vices as anyone,
with the possible exception of Catch on Fire Inc...

"Even in Australia I was told by a Coptic Church, their secretary told
me that their members have been approached if they become Muslim they
will be given $10,000 here. So they're offering money here, it's not
only happening in 7th century Arabia or in Pakistan or some other
countries, right here, under our nose. OK, so that's a valid way of
converting, it's a "silent Jihad"";

"There are many things in the Qur'an are not completely clear, not very
clear, so then you read Hadith, you read the explanation. OK, so when
people read that, study that for six years, they become true Muslim and
we call them terrorists. But actually they are true Muslims because they
read the Qur'an they understood it and know they're practising it";

The terrorists are the 'true muslims' because they share the
Catch on Fire Inc.. 'interpretation' of the Koran?!??

Read the Koran, Vegie? Care to cite where it says the true
Muslims will slaughter innocents?

If not.. How is this VILE TRADUCING of 1.8 Billion fellow humans
who are NOT committing acts of terror, but opposing it, part of
this "Love" of which you speak for Muslims?

Would I be loving my Christian neighbours if I took all the
comments from the OT out of context to portray God and his
Chosen People as genocidal?

What those ignorant bigots inflicted on apparently even more
clueless and uncritical sheeple than themselves is the equivalent
of quoting "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him" and proclaiming Christians to be
cannibals! pfffft!

And what of The Truth, in YOUR religion?

Let me tell you about Love, the woman I mentioned who was
tortured in Iran, doesn't preach "Muslims are terrible people"
even though some tiny few have been so very terrible to her.
And she doesn't hold seminars denouncing Muslims in vile
stereotypes, and then coyly announce.. "OF course I love Muslims..
it's the way they act which I despise" B^p

She really does Love, she invites the Malay students from the
flat next door for dinner, and out of Love, never mentions
what other Muslims have done to her, unlike Nalliah and Scott, she
does NOT hold all Muslims COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE for acts by a
few individuals.. and certainly does not presume that she needs
to 'save' ordinary Muslims from their genuine, non-torturing,
faith.

That is the essence of Nalliah and Scotts villification. The
evidence seems clear. The Appeal changed the test of incitement
from incitement to effective incitement, requiring proof of a
direct link between the unarguable bigotry, slander and ignorant
stereotyping, and specific acts of violence.

(d) [after describing an article about an interview between a Rabbi and
a chief Mufti] "So Chief Mufti, when he was interviewed Rabbi asked him
that what is your plan for Australia and that Chief Mufti said our plan
for Australia is that we will declare Islamic nation when they'll be 51%
Australian. He said OK, so what will be your plan for other 49% who are
not Muslim at that stage? So the other 49% will have choice to become
Muslim or leave Australia. That was declaration not in Pakistan, not in
Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, here in our own city called Sydney";

(e) "[I]f you don't become Muslim then your head should be chopped off,
if you don't pay the poll tax, you have option to leave the country, if
you don't do that, then your head should be chopped off. So that's
Islam. OK. So this is, we need to be aware that Muslim have not
forgotten the definition. They know what it means, but they will not
tell you want it means, unless appropriate time";

(f) "So when we think of good things or bad things, what Allah says,
good need not be good as we understand, so Allah says of fighting, war
is ordained for you. It's good for you that you loot people, you kill
people, you destroy people. You may not like it but Allah says it is
good for Muslim people. So we read in the Holy Qur'an chapter 9, verse
23, that the prophet said all you who believe fight those disbelievers
who are in your neighbourhood, then Muslim they will <<act>> on this
verse; chapter 9 verse 23, and people in the neighbourhood, that's where
this trouble will start first and that's according to the Holy Qur'an";

Wow, vegie, when you Love someone you go all out to slander them
viciously! Got a real expert of the Koran there, eh?

Seriously.. how many in that audience know who the 'disbelievers'
are? How many think it's them that will be attacked 'in the
neighbourhood'?

FFS, and THIS is how Catch on Fire Inc.. 'Loves' their brothers and
sisters? By traducing them and inciting FEAR and hatred?


(g) "Conquered country has option to become Muslim, people they become
...can become Muslim. Otherwise they should pay jizya. Jizya means
protection money. You know there's some nice people that ask you give me
$10,000 otherwise you will be a dead man, dead woman. Jizya protection
money, so a Muslim if you living in Islamic country you have to pay
jizya protection money [sic]. OK. And if you refuse to do this is the
third option, that be sword to those who will not pay jizya. [sic]";

Been to our largest, closest neighbour, Vegie?

200,000,000 Muslims. How much 'protection money' did they
extort from you.. or were you put to the sword for not paying?

How can adults sit through this shite and simply clap like
brainwashed Nazis?

Why did not ONE person stand up and challenge these vile slanders?

(j) "So if you want to be sure, of your paradise, you should be surely
dead man. To be dead sure you have to be dead. In Islam for salvation.
And that's why there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim people waiting
in queue for suicide bombing. Then they can be dead sure, because they
will be definitely dead, and then they will be dead sure of their
salvation".

This is how you show 'Love' to Muslims, by inviting Goebbles to come
and 'educate' you on the Jews? B^p

(a) "So when we read the Qur'an carefully we find out there are many
verses in Qur'an which speak non-violence, and there are many many more
verses in Qur'an which speak nothing but violence. Why is it so, because
when Muhammad the prophet of Allah, the founder of Islam, when he was
poor, when he was needy, why he has no manpower, that time he was
teaching gentle things, no violence, don't do this, don't do that, but
when he became powerful he has army then he was receiving new revelation";

FFS the believers were being SLAUGHTERED! They fled but were still
attacked.

(b) "So it [the Qur'an] states there's no compulsion in religion so
Muslims can show you, look Qur'an sees wonderful things and there's no
room for violence, and it's true Qur'an does teach. Why? Because at that
time Muhammad was not a very powerful man he is not a big army so it was
a different type of teaching that time";


12. By the statements referred to in paragraphs 10 to 11 above and
throughout the Seminar, the Third Respondent:

(a) incited scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims;

(b) mocked what Muslims believe;

(c) repeatedly invoked laughter from the audience when describing
apparent Muslim beliefs;

(d) misrepresented the Islamic faith;

(e) misrepresented the <<religious and non-religious>> practices,
behaviour and conduct of Muslims in Australia."
Post by vegemite
------------------------------
What is a legal technicality ?
------------------------------
A technicality is where we see such clear evidence
of Catch on Fire traducing and slandering Muslims, but the
appeal decides the test used in the original hearing
"would a reasonable person be incited', was not the test
which should be used.

I agree, those conducting the seminar and those attending were not
reasonable persons.

The substantive issue remains, their notion of 'Loving thy neighbour'
is to slander and traduce them, without actually knowing them.


If you want to witness Legalism that would make the Pharisees proud,
then consider this ploy on behalf of Nalliah, Scott and Catch on Fire
Inc..;

"The respondent seeks to deny that Islam is a religion by reference to a
decision that the law of blasphemy only applies to Christianity"

Translation: 'We would like the court to reflect our
prejudice based on the legal prejudice of previous Christians'!?"

????

vegie, the respondents OWN 'expert' witnesses (the ones who had
neither qualifications, experience nor contact with Muslims)
admitted that, yes, Islam is a world religion.

Why are your pastors repeatedly False Witnesses?

And why are you so afraid of Truth that you would seek to PROHIBIT
other faiths from even reading or possessing their sacred texts in
Australia:

"The respondent asserts that the distribution of the Qur'an is illegal
because it is a seditious act."

And this is the 'religious'?/political group that Howard associates
himself with, one that proposes a Christian Sharia state where only
the Christian faith and Christian Bible are allowed and religious
freedom is trampled?

This is your idea of "Love thy neighbour" .. the Christian Taliban
meets The Stepford Wives?
Post by vegemite
Fazzer said in thread "Why is Christian Hate speech
approved by the PM and other extremists?"
The answer is obvious, in 1934 there is a real political
advantage in riding the bandwagon of 'get the Dirty Yid'

and even some churches climbed on board! 8^o

This is nothing new, the Pharisees and Sadducees were really
POLITICAL, not spiritual, powers.
Post by vegemite
They appealed and the appeal court determined
on a technicality the case should be heard again!
...and in another thread
"Howard's values - tear down Satan's CUB, every hotel, the Cup,
Tattslotto and two-up!"
Islam 'not a religion', the Qur'an Banned.. all the other religions
must be getting a bit nervous about your agenda, especially when
it dovetails with Howard's assault on cultural freedoms.. no wonder
he is in bed with extremist cults, they share his desire for a mandatory
orthodoxy... it is, after all, about political control, not faith.

Sihks, Hindu's, Buddhists and Jews, none of them even have Islam's
degree of acceptance of Christ, so they are clearly in danger.

But then what about all the Christian denominations who don't share your
perspective and interpretation? Dogma rarely stops with the removal of
the major heresies.. it just moves to ever smaller, tighter degrees of
control.
Post by vegemite
The verdict was not overturned, an appeal determined a
re-hearing on a technicality, not on the substance.
Fazzer states that the Victorian Supreme Court set aside the
original convictions against Nahllia and Scot on the basis of a
legal technicality.
I argue that the conviction was set aside on substantive points
of law.
but not on the evidence, which clearly shows them slandering and
traducing, not loving, Muslims. From the Supreme Court Appeal;

"The Seminar was not a balanced discussion. It was a process of taking
literal translations from the Qur’an, and making no allowance for their
applicability to modern day society."

The appeal finding does not dispute that this us what Nalliah,
Scott and Catch on Fire preach, MISREPRESENTATIONS AND STEREOTYPES
WHICH THEY USE To PORTRAY **ALL** MUSLIMS AS IDENTICAL TO THE
MINORITY OF WORST BEHAVED THEY CAN FIND!

This is your 'Love'?? Lies and false witness? 8^o

" ... interpretation of the Qur’an by Pastor Scot represented the views
of a small group of fundamentalists, namely, Wahabbists, who are located
in the Gulf states, and who are a minority group, and their views bear
no relationship to mainstream Muslim beliefs and, in particular,
Australian Muslims."

Now THAT is Satanic! Taking a small minority and presenting them
to an IGNORANT and prejudiced audience who are already convinced
they are the sole possessors of religious Truth as grounds for
a COLLECTIVE condemnation of ALL Muslims!!!

That, mate, is pure unmitigated EVIL!

"Here is a Dirty Jew, ....all Jews are Dirty"

Why does the appeal court allow Nalliah Scott and these
PSEUDO CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITES to deliberately bear False Witness?

Their specious 'reasoning' is "just because the preaching was
completely false and unbalanced does not mean it incited hatred of
all Muslims;

"The problem with that is that the verity of Pastor Scot’s statements
about the religious beliefs of Muslims was irrelevant to the matters in
issue."

A 'technicality, old son, is where the appeal court decides that
the TRUTH (or in this case, obvious absence of it, is IRRELEVANT!

Ah.. the Blind Justice of Pilate! So beloved of earthly powers
and principalities.

"Whether his statements about the religious beliefs of Muslims were
accurate or inaccurate or balanced or unbalanced was incapable of
yielding an answer to the question of whether the statements incited
hatred or other relevant emotion."

Funny, I don't recall Catch on Fire leaping to the defence
of their Muslim Neighbours when the media crucifies some
ignorant Mufti and saying "The test is not if he says hateful
things, you have to prove that it directly caused hateful acts'.

Love they neighbour, not quite as well as you love yourself. B^p

"Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be
completely false and utterly unbalanced and yet do nothing to incite
hatred of those who adhere to those beliefs."

And so the issue moved on from Pilate, and the court washed it's
hands! B^p

But Muslims are traduced and slandered NOT for THEIR beliefs, but the
beliefs falsely ascribed to them by Nalliah, Scott et al!! 8^o
People who are not Wahabists are COLLECTIVELY condemned for it.

Ok, so we hold ALL Christians responsible for the Inquisition,
Pogroms against Jews, Witchburnings, Paedophile priests, IRA
and Provo terrorists... and that means YOU, vegie..

After all, just because we tar you all with the same brush does not
mean we are inciting hatred towards you. B^p

Are you so happy to embrace such calumny?

Are you still asking us to believe this is your idea of Love?
Post by vegemite
So what is a legal technicality ?
Well, in this case it is NOT dismissing the original
finding because of the EVIDENCE of lies and calumny,
but on the notion that the Kazak test, 'a reasonable person',
should not have be applied to the congregation..

Which may well be true, they are certainly strange people,
to sit through such hatred, lies, misrepresentation
and bigotry, without even one true witness raising a
question! Bit of a Mob Mentality, not really
the place for rational discussion.

But the suggestion the tribunal should have weighed
the congregations response differently does not in any way
diminish the evidence itself.

Which I hope you are going to address, one day. B^p

The other technicality is that the appeal court decided you did not
have to simply show VILIFICATION (which was easily demonstrated)
but you have to show that Clappy Happy Carl was INCITED to go out and
perpetrate violence and hatred! You can't convict Goebbles,
because you can't PROVE that the 'Dirty Jew' calumny played any role
in the Holocaust! 8^o

Well.. we have vegie here, defending the notion that
such slander is his idea of "Christian Love"... so there
seems to be a definite effect!

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to Pilate
that which is truly his;
Post by vegemite
"The term legal technicality is a casual or colloquial phrase
referring to a technical aspect of law. The phrase is not a term
of art in the law; it has no exact meaning, not does it have a
legal definition. The words "legal technicality" are often used
in a pejorative sense..."
Wikipedia then goes on to provide some examples of legal
- Time constraints, including Statutes of limitations
...
- Miranda Warning
- Rules of evidence
- Various immunities, such as Sovereign immunity, Diplomatic
immunity
- Rules of appellate procedure"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technicality
Fazzer appears to assert, then, that the reason that Nahllia and
Scot (hereafter 'The Pastors') succeeded in their appeal was due
to technical or procedural reasons unrelated to substantive points
of law or process but, rather, due to unimportant aspects of
process that provided The Pastors with unfair or unjust (albeit
legal) grounds to have their appeal succeed.
In regard to what Fazzer refers to as 'substance', above,
I think he is referring to the evidence presented in the case.
The VSC has not presented any opinion as to the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the original guilty verdict, but does
say that the Tribunal was incorrect in how it applied the law to
the case.
Through incorrect application of the law, the Tribunal made a
decision that cannot be sustained in law hence the original guilty
verdict cannot be sustained. The Tribunal has been told, nicely,
to try again and this time do it properly. Hence the VSC shows
that the Tribunal gave The Pastors the rough end of the pineapple;
an unjustified verdict.
------------------------------
Why The Appeal Succeeded
------------------------------
Let's look at the decision of the Supreme Court then and see
why it upheld the Pastor's appeal.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html
Supreme Court Of Victoria
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria
Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006) (henceforth 'decison')
The Court used substantive reasons of law when upholding The
Pastor's appeal, not technicalities. Here are the substantive
issues of law that led to the Victorian Tribunal making its
1) Tribunal mistaken in Use of the 'Kazak' test to determine
'ordinary reasonable reader'(Para. 12 in decision)
The Kazak test, which comes from defamation law, says to ignore
any special characteristics or proclivities to which the audience
or potential audience might be subject and to assess the matter
by reference to the standard of the "ordinary reasonable reader".
The VCSA opines that Kazak should not have been applied to the case
at hand and that the characteristics of the audience at the seminar
should be considered.
I agree, the new hearing should fully take into account the
views you have revealed here and elsewhere, that Muslims
are spiritual Untermensch. That despite mainstream Christian
acknowledgement that they worship the same God as Christians,
you seek to magnify any doctrinal divisions you can find to deny
such basic brotherhood, and your intent is to assert that loving
such neighbours is not based on knowing them and embracing
differences, but that they are in error, because they do not
share your views. In fact, you condemn them ALL on the views
held by a tiny few of them! 8^0

You go so far as to ignore all of their recognition of Jesus
Christ, and to assert, and argue that Judiasm is closer to
Christianity, despite it's utter rejection of Christ! 8^o

Reason, it seems, plays no place in your hostility.
And protestations that you love them, in the face of evidence
that ALL of your posts condemn them, is hypocrisy.
Post by vegemite
"In my view [Kazak] is not altogether apposite in relation to
s.8 of the Act... I do not accept that one should exclude from
consideration the nature of the audience to whom the conduct
is directed.
The idea of the "ordinary reasonable reader" belongs to the law
of defamation. It has as its object the protection of individuals
against false allegations calculated to lower them in the esteem
of their fellows.
Precisely. The case is to be re-heard because of this, and other,
minor technicalities.

The Supreme court has not challenged that the evidence would convict
if it had been presented to an 'ordinary reasonable person' but has
told the tribunal it should consider the effect on the congregation,
as they may not be 'ordinary reasonable people'.

The problem for you, and the reason why the Court did not throw the case
out entirely, is that the evidence I have already presented to you
was not just presented to the congregation, but published in leaflets
and a web site.

Many 'ordinary reasonable people' also read it. And can decide for
themselves where the "Love" is. pfffft!

The special pleading, that Catch on Fire Inc.. are different, may well
be true, but just because cannibals are different does not mean we
will let them put Aunt Mary on the menu.. even if the Court says
our test should take into account their 'differentness'.

It is a curious legal argument for you to support, given that your
rejection of Islam is because of your perceived doctrinal differences,
you want the court to *understand* your 'differences' from ordinary
folk, but condemn Muslims for theirs, not merely ignoring CONTEXT in
their case, but falsifying it.. holding them ALL responsible for
views only some may hold. B^p
Post by vegemite
Contrastingly, s.8 does not prohibit statements about religious
beliefs per se or even statements which are critical or
destructive of religious beliefs. Nor does it prohibit statements
concerning the religious beliefs of a person or group of persons
simply because they may offend or insult the person or
group of persons.
But they slandered *ALL* MUSLIMS, not just Islam, based on False
Witness.

The teachings of Jesus do prohibit such lies, and it is clear
His teachings play no part in Catch on Fire Inc's denigration of their
neighbours, collectively, on the basis of ignorance and stereotyping.

After all, we are talking about a religion of hate which speaks of
"tearing down the temples of Satan" which it identifies as Pubs,
brothels, Bottle Shops, TAB's AND ANYONE ELSE'S TEMPLES, MOSQUES
OR SYNAGOGUES!

This is not the language of Love, this is how they really think about
their neighbours.. less Holy than themselves, whose worship of the God
who commands us above all to worship Him, is to be forbidden and
destroyed... they may only worship God as We decide they should.

Such is the narrow fundamentalism which Christ himself faced from those
who made themselves partners with, rather than servants of, God.
Post by vegemite
The proscription is limited to that which incites hatred or
other relevant emotion and s.8 must be applied so as to give it
that effect."
(Decision Paras. 13-15)
2) Tribunal mistaken in Use of 'Bropho' test to evaluate
discrimination 'on the grounds of religious belief'
(Para. 20, 21 in decision)
3) The 'Bropho' test is itself flawed and is based on a
minority judicial opinion from the case law it draws upon.
a) Arising from the misuse of Bropho, the Tribunal
decided the case on the incorrect legal question
(decision para. 30, 32)
"In effect the Tribunal decided that the Seminar
contravened s.8 because the Tribunal was satisfied
that Pastor Scot was moved or caused by the religious
beliefs of Muslims to make the statements which he did
at the Seminar, and that an ordinary reasonable person
who was not malevolently inclined or free from
susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined by Pastor
Scot's statements to hate Muslims.
So the tribunal was correct to find that an ordinary reasonable
person would be inclined by Nalliah and Scotts statements to hate
Muslims, but the appeal court maintains that is not the test.

Isn't it precisely the test Jesus lays down, when asked "What is the
Greatest Commandment?

Apparently, Catch the Fire Inc.. preaches and teaches that love of God
means preaching AGAINST those who Love the same God, if they do so in a
way different to your own beliefs and understandings, or, far worse,
if the beliefs you PROJECT ONTO THEM, do! 8^o

Deliberate False Witness!

And the corollary, that you DEMONSTRATE your love for God by
loving your neighbours as yourself, is also re-interpreted to
be a teaching that you CONDEMN your neighbours based on ignorance
and slanders, that you do not seek to know them or understand them,
only to slander them ALL as liars and the Enemy, their places of worship
(Of the SAME God, remember!) to be "Satanic" (Utterly evil)! 8^o

Hardly the same standard the fundies apply to themselves, when they
argue Catch on Fire Inc... must be understood in THEIR context of
difference from ordinary reasonable people, (while failing to understand
Muslim doctrine at ALL, let alone in it's context) ....'you must
understand when we say "pull down their satanic temples" we really mean
"Love them with words of condemnation and prayers that they can no
longer worship the same God as us"'. But when they say 'Jihad' which
means STRUGGLE against evil, (from personal failings to social threats),
we will always interpret it as War and violence.

Those who use Literalism only when it suits them are hypocrites.

Those who profess to Love, but make no genuine efforts
to understand, and in fact preach stereotypes of hate and
misunderstanding, are hypocrites.

And that much is clear, even if the appeal body accepts their
pleading for special understanding;
Post by vegemite
But, for the reasons which I have given, I do not
consider that that was the question which needed to be
decided.
According to Christian teachings, it is. Love thy neighbour
as thyself does not mean tearing down the temples of the
Samaritans, just because they worship the Same God but with a different
doctrine. And it does not mean condemning them out of prejudice, and
demanding the right to incite hatred because your particular minority
Christian doctrine is one of Harsh judgementalism of those who are
different, and you claim slander as a religious duty.
Post by vegemite
In my view the question was whether, having regard
to the content of the statements in the context of the
whole of the Seminar, and to the nature of the audience
in the sense that I have described, the natural and
ordinary effect of what was stated was to encourage
the hatred of Muslims based on their religious beliefs."
(Decision Para. 30)
The problem with that is that the publication and the web site
had a wider circulation than the seminar, and slandering
1.8 Billion Muslims as Liars and The Satanic Enemy in the current
environment of fear and hysteria is tantamount to shouting FIRE
in a crowded hall, or more accurately "WITCH! WITCH!! WITCH!!!"
from those who traditionally USE FIRE to burn the witches! 8^o

No surprises then, that while they pour the petrol of ignorance
fear and hatred toward all non-Christians, we have attacks upon
non-Christians in our communities.

This is not Christ. This is all those Christians (EXCEPT
paster Neimoller), who stayed silent, or joined in the the
hysteria, when the chants of "Dirty Yid" rose to a crescendo.

Of course, we all know, slandering whole communities based on
ignorance and prejudice is fine if nice, civilized Christians, who Love
their enemy, do it. Just ask the German Jews.

The courts never lifted a finger for truth then, either.

But God calls ALL his Children to a Higher Plane.

"Oh lord, preserve us from those who think you speak to them,
and them alone, directly"
Post by vegemite
NB The VSC actually prescribes a _simpler_ test
of inciting hatred than VCAT which deems it irrelevant
_what caused_ Scot to make his statements. VSC says to
concentrate simply on whether or not hatred was
actually incited against Muslims.
You actually have to show that Goebbles 'Dirty Yid' campaign was
directly responsible for every act of violence on Krystal Nacht,
not just that his racist hate speech was IN ITSELF vile slander,
bigotry, stereotyping and used to CONDEMN collectively.

pffffft!
Post by vegemite
b) Arising from the misuse of Bropho, the Tribunal did not
give a great deal of consideration to the distinction
between hatred of the religious beliefs of Muslims and
hatred of Muslims because of their religious beliefs.
When they slander all Muslims with condemnation of Wahabism which
Australian Muslims do not subscribe to, they are clearly attacking
Muslims, not their beliefs.
Post by vegemite
As Justice Nettle said in the decision
"The Tribunal appears to me to have assumed that the
two conceptions are identical...In my view, that is not
so." (Para. 32)
This conception is supported by case law from the same
Tribunal that found The Pastors guilty, but was not used
in their case. (Para. 34)
c) By ignoring the relevant distinction between beliefs
and people, the Tribunal used an irrelevant criteria in
attempting to arbitrate the case, namely, whether or not
Pastor Scot's view of Islam was 'balanced'.
"Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of
persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced
and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere
to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the
religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly
true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain
to incite hatred..." (Para.35, 36)
The appeal court is asking you to believe that in the week after
September 11, an unbalanced equating of all Muslims to a tiny
foreign minority of Wahabists, defining Australian Muslims as The Enemy
and slandering them as Liars, does nothing to 'incite hatred' of those
who don't even hold the beliefs their False Witnesses have accused them
of! 8^o

That is not merely a feeble technical argument, but is weak logic.
Post by vegemite
d) The effect of VCAT arbitrating on Pastor Scot's 'balance'
or lack thereof was to preclude a great deal of testimony
that showed Scot ameliorated any perceived risk of
inciting
hatred by continually referring to the need to love Muslim
people (in distinction to their beliefs) (Para. 36)
More on this below.
"I Like Jews, they just need to stop being Dirty warmongering Yids,
accept Jesus and be saved" - Mal Glibson after he sobered up enough to
realise the mike was left on.



If that is Christian Love, who would want them as neighbours?

Of course, it isn't. Nalliah and Scott are Christian Wahabists,
a small, but vociferous and hate-filled, minority, who do not represent
the mainstream, and certainly not the teachings of Christ.
Post by vegemite
e) In the nineteen specific instances cited by the VCAT as
showing that Pastor Scot had incited hatred toward Muslims
Nettle found Scot had been misquoted nine times and taken
out of context another nine.
In many cases the Tribunals quotations of Scot are
factually
erroneous. The Supreme Court decision repeatedly notes
'Pastor Scot DID NOT SAY...' in distinction to the
original
Tribunal verdict which opines 'Pastor Scot made the
following
statements...'
In relation to Pastor Scot's seminar then, The VCAT's
catalogue of supposed vilification becomes much smaller.
(decision Paras 38-62)
f) The VCAT said that a significant feature of the seminar
which led it to conclude that Scot had incited hatred
toward
"...what the audio does is to produce a fairly significant
alteration in the import of what was said by Pastor Scot...
Applying the objective test to which I have referred, I
have found the oral presentation is a significant step or,
more accurately, it is an important feature which
demonstrates that Pastor Scot has...engaged in conduct
that
incites hatred against...Muslims..."
(para. 380 in original VCAT verdict)
"I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the
manner of Pastor Scot's delivery which rendered his
statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred or
other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. ...on any
analysis his plea to love Muslims and to "minister" to
them
comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his
audience's reaction to it." (decision Para. 63)
##### For The Fazzer No. 1 #####
Fazzer, the Victorian Supreme Court, on listening to the tape
finds evidence that the audience was incited to LOVE
Muslims, not hate them,
and that Scot appeared to make progress
toward that goal. Would you agree ?
No. I think it is self serving claptrap to say we love the
Jew, it is his practice of eating Christian children we despise.
Love is not based on lies, you have to KNOW someone to love them,
not present a despicable UNREPRESENTATIVE bogeyman and say of
1,800,000,000 people we love them, even though they are like THAT! B^p

But you know, I love Jesus and when you have Jesus in your heart
you just want to help Christian Wahabists to find the truth and be saved
from the lying slandering hate filled False Witnesses we know them all
to be.. and despite their filthy beliefs and heresies, we love every
lost Satanic one of them. Would your kids like to come over to play so
we can tell them how evil you all are, and invite them to turn away from
Satan?


This is especially heinous when that vitriol is towards a
minority who are already scapegoated by media and political interests.

Here's a simple test, the seminar was advertised thus;

"Free admission. A love offering will be taken"

As the claim was to 'Love' those being vilified, how much
of the offering was offered to them? If not money, how
much simple understanding and acceptance was offered?
There was certainly bugger-all knowledge, wisdom,
understanding, insight of genuine Love..

Or are they the object of a very different kind of 'Love'
the love of the sanctimonious frauds who believe their
own bigotry but have to cloak it "Darling, you are looking
a little ill, and that dress makes your bum look so big"
- Sunday Love-in at Catch on Fire Inc...

You cannot love those you do not even know. You can pretend,
like an adolescent schoolgirl with a crush on a distant rock star..
but in the context of a church, it simply re-enforces smug
self satisfaction;

"Look how horrible their actions are, how consumed with sin,
and yet we love them."

Aren't we wonderful.

The only response such people have if they ever MEET a Muslim,
is to do so with a conviction they should be 'witnessed to',
the first response is not to know or understand them, but to
'save them' from their evil ways.

The genuine Christians I know, SHOW their love in CONCRETE
ways. They are engaged in a loving DIALOGUE with Muslims,
not spitting ignorant bile and patronising FELLOW BELIEVERS;

"Now bible tells us you know the truth; the truth will set you free but
Muslim people when they come to some teaching they don't like, people
you know they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth they
will hide the truth. They will tell lies"

'Muslim people', eh?

Who can judge 1,800,000,000 people?

Clearly only those who already see themselves as God-Like. B^p
Post by vegemite
#################################
h) Another effect of VCAT arbitrating on Pastor Scot's
'balance'
or lack thereof was to include irrelevant testimony.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

The appeal court ruled it was IRRELEVANT that Scott's preaching was
false, slanderous, vilification and calumny which traduced ALL
Muslims.. what was required was to prove a link between incitement to
hate and actual acts of hatred!

You have to wait for the Holocaust to find Goebbles guilty of inciting
the hatred which led to it. B^p

No room in the court for Jesus and the Great commandment.

In
Post by vegemite
this
case, some testimony of the three Muslims who attended the
Seminar and made the complaint. The issue is not whether
some
Muslims were offended by the seminar, but rather, whether
or
not the persons at the seminar were incited to hatred of
So it doesn't matter that this Love fest is lies, or that the people
they claim to Love were deeply hurt and offended, what has to be
proved is that those at the seminar were incited by all the hate speech
to actually hate.

The test is about the *effectiveness* of the Hate speech.

Were the congregation incited by the incitement.

IS that your test vegie?

Are you happy that would be Justice, rather than a narrow reading of the
law?

Are the congregation really the only ones incited, when the website
conveys the same vitriol and abuse;


"The Transcript and Tapes

80 I turn to the transcript of the seminar which extends to some
110 pages. As I have indicated, it took place over the course of the day
and I do not intend to set out each and every passage which may
constitute a breach of Section 8. The following passages are sufficient
to make out a breach applying the test which I have set out in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of these reasons. I also make the point that I
believe it is important to have regard to the cumulative effect of the
statements made by Pastor Scot. One utterance standing alone may not be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
significant, but when regard is had to the totality of what was said, it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
makes the complainant's case cogent."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Similarly, self serving claims that we must show our love
for the child by beating the fear of God into it really carry
no weight when none of the actions support the claim of Love,
and all of them belie it.


"During the course of the seminar, Pastor Scot made the following
statements:

(1) that the Qur'an promotes violence and killing - p.4; T24 (looting,
killing and destroying people - good for Muslim people - p.24;

(2) Muslim scholars misrepresent what the Qur'an says by varying the
emphasis depending upon the audience - pp.4-5;

See Vegie quoting Nalliah on how to prepare Muslims for conversion,
avoiding the vilification preached at seminars and presenting a
smiling front.

(3) that the Qur'an teaches that women are of little value, e.g.:

The Qur'an was a revolutionary IMPROVEMENT in the status of women
at the time of it's revelation. At the time the tribes to whom it
was revealed were burying girl babies in the sand. It codified, for
the first time, rights for women, including property rights that
Western women did not achieve for centuries.

The Bible shows Abraham kept slaves, and for centuries Christians
used this to justify the Slave trade. People who quote without
context or understanding reveal their OWN MALIGN INTENT.

(a) woman is like a field to plough, use her as you wish - p.6;

Ishmael, Isaac's half brother is the product of Abraham taking his
slave woman.

Some might say Arabs have been enslaved by Christians and
Jews ever since.

(b) in the Hadith Bukhari woman, dog and donkey are of equal value
influencing prayer of a Muslim man.

A Hadith is an OPINION. I can write you one now. It is up to
you to decide how authoritative you think it is to ADD or REMOVE
from God's scripture.

Clearly Nalliah et al approve of man re-writing God's word.

or perhaps they are as dangerously ignorant as their diatribes
suggest.

(4) that Allah is not merciful. The thief's hand is cut off for
stealing. Mohammed did not spare anybody. Amputation occurs for even the
stealing of an egg - p.10;

Stoning is the Biblical punishment for fornication, adultery, eating
shellfish and talking disrespectfully to parents.

Go Figure! According to Mulla Nalliah and Imam Scott, that makes the
Bible a violent brutal document and God a tyrant.

Of course, in a tribal context, with no mass communication and
transportation which is the foundation of the nation state and the
global society, you have few options to project the RULE OF LAW
beyond the gates of the capital. pou create FEW laws, SIMPLY stated
with a basic and memorable set of consequences.

With luck, by the time they propogate to the edges of the Kingdom
they will not have become garbled from "Send re-inforcements we
are going to advance' to 'Send three and fourpence, we are going
to a dance"

later, when you have developed paper, printing, people can read,
radio and telephones and the internet link us closer together, you
can develop refinements, like feminism, or voting.

For fucks sake, why does one set of imbeciles who believe their OWN
two thousand year old revelation is perfectly suitable for running
life in the 21st century mock the 1,428 year old regulations of their
fellow believers!???????????????????

Neither of them readily allows the necessary RE-INTERPRETATIONS
of the SECOND AND THIRD ORDER RULES to make them appropriate to the
current epoch, and yet neither of them, despite believing in
PROGRESSIVE REVELATION **UP UNTIL** THEIR OWN RELIGION, will accept
that God might continue his clear pattern and send new revelators!

Even though one of them is explicitly told one will come,
'like a thief in the night' and be gone before they realise
he's been.

8^)

(5) Muslims lie for the sake of Islam and that it is "all right", they
have to hide the truth - pp.10-11;

See Vegie quoting Catch on Fire's guidelines for converting Muslims.

They all 'put their best foot forward' but CONVERSION, not loving
fellowship, is their goal.

Religious unity, the Kingdom of God on Earth, will be established
when vegie strives to be the best Christian he can be, and Abdul
strives to be the best Muslim he can be, and they work together
to resolve all the problems and issues, not to steal each others
flock!

(6) Muslims are demons - pp.13-14;

Sure, and Nalliah, Scott and vegie are Demon-Lovers

Best move away from them, folks. You don't want your kids coming
into contact with Demon-vibes.

Someone pass the Wassail, let's get Medieval. B^p

(7) the practice of abrogation, that is cancellation of words from the
Qur'an and Hadiths solely to fit some particular purpose or personal
need - pp.14-17;

Nalliah: Don't tell prospective Muslim converts they are Demons/
liars/ the enemy.. at least not until they are converted and
taught to regard their former-co-religionists as Satanic. pffft!



(8) the concept of Silent Six Jihad, some of which are use of business
connections - p.6; using money to induce people to convert to Islam -
p.17; training of Muslims in Madrassahs and the statement there are
millions of people right now under training in Madrassahs implying a
threat to Australia;

Anyone got a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

BTW, the word Madrassah means School, would someone please tell
those ignorant gobshites that the existence of an al-Qaida school
does not mean ALL schools breed terrorists.

(9) People do study for six to seven years they become true Muslims. And
we call them terrorists, but they are true Muslim; they have read the
Qur'an, they have understood it and now they are practising it, that is
the connection between the Qur'an and terrorism - p.19;

So, 1.8 billion Muslims read the Koran, and a few become terrorists,
a LOWER proportion than the IRA, witchburners and Crusaders
slaughtering their way through Iraq.. Nalliah proves Christianity
breeds murder. Well Done.

(10) Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic
nation - p.23;

About as much chance as Collingwood winning the premiership, still
it frightens the children, which pretty well describes the
uncritical, unquestioning sheeple who attend these 'seminars',
run buy 'experts' in their own imagination.

(Drurie admitted he had no training, no scholarship, no interraction
with actual Muslims, and Catch on Fire presented him as an 'expert'
for the defence! 8^D )

(11) Mohammed trained the entire nation and he took literally, part in
the Holy War. He showed Muslims how pleasant it is and if you are killed
in the Holy War you can be brought back to life because dying as a
martyr is such a wonderful thing - p.32; Allah will remit the sins of
martyrs and bring them into paradise, a reference to a connection to
suicide bombing - p.33; parents bringing up their children for
martyrdom, where there is a reference to a teenage son will be a suicide
bomber and if killed he can intercede for his mother and father and
relatives - p.34;

Christian martyrs are similarly revered, Joan of Arc was
one such warrior.

The Koran condemns the murder of innocents, i.e. terrorism

Read Salah'u'din to see how the Christian Crusaders, famous for
pillaging their way across Christian Europe, learnt the rudiments
of Chivalry from the Muslim warrior who showed Mercy to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, even after the Knights Templar had
slaughtered caravan trains of civilians and murdered his
sister, to provoke a war.

You cannot pretend that all virtue resides with one people, one faith
one culture, and all evil with another.. well, not unless you are
self-deluded Nazi lunatics.


(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews - p.38; humiliate
them - p.39; fight them until they accept true religion - p.40.



# "And argue not with the People of the Scripture
# unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
# save with such of them as do wrong;
# and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
# and revealed unto you;
# our God and your God is One,
# and unto Him we surrender."
#
# - The Qur'an Sura 29 verse 46


For 1428 years Muslims have claimed to be fellow believers,
brothers, who worship the same God,
not until 1965 did the Church officially concur.

Tell me who has Loved thy neighbour with greater fidelity?


(13) After reference to the bombing of the Trade Centre in New York it
is mentioned that the person who masterminded it stated that "The Holy
War is the spirit, it is the soul of Islam. If you remove it, nothing
left, so that is the truth about the matter" - p.

Wahabbist suicide bombers are NOT Islam. The seminar, the web, the
pamphlets, all propogated this malign lie, Wahabbism is a tiny
minority group... Shall we judge Christians by the IRA, or David
Koresh, or George Bush?

Stop this PERNICIOUS VILIFICATION AND HATE SPEECH!

There is simply too much of this nonsense to rebut it all,
that will do to demonstrate the 'quality' of the nonsensical hate-
speech the Catch on Fire Inc. ministry feeds it's sheeple.

(14) That the Qur'an states that Allah misleads and deceives people -
p.48, and referred to Allah as the greatest deceiver - p.50. The Qur'an
states that there is a "list of sins which Muslims are not supposed to
do, however if needed, then that's a different story. But we will look
at later. Sin is a relative thing in Islam" - p.55, and that Allah says
if you will not commit sin, Allah will destroy you - p.56.

(15) That Muslims are taught that children should obey their parents,
but if the parents are not Muslim, then children have a responsibility
to mistreat them and to deal with them harshly, so when you are true
Muslim, as you know David Hicks, you have heard of him, now he has
responsibility to do that because he is true Muslim. So when true
Muslim, you have to destroy your relative and so on, so that's the
commandment of Allah, you cannot just ignore it - p.59-60.

(16) There is a reference to the Qur'an allows the use by Muslims of
prostitutes - p.60-61.

(17) Allah says "Do not covet", that's a good thing, but then Allah says
if you are true Muslim, Allah has promised you plenty of spoil, so you
go for looting, you go for Holy War and Allah will give you a lot of
spoil - p.64. That the Qur'an allows a Muslim to have a child wife
because the holy prophet was in his fifties when he married a seven year
old girl.

(18) That Muslims derive money from drugs, so they make a lot of money
and they can spread Islam and fulfil their desire - p.71.

(19) Refers to the fact that it was thought that he was Muslim and had
converted to Christianity, what would be the responsibility of
fundamentalists in that respect, to which the audience said "Kill,
kill". That in Australia in Islamic houses violence is very common
because they know that beating is not wrong according to the Qur'an.
Allah says "Scourge your wife" - p.95. That Muslims in Australia double
their population in less than seven years. They are growing because they
control the Immigration Department - p.97.

81 It should be noted that from time to time there is talk of
witnessing to Muslims. There is also talk about how to socialise with
them and to do all things necessary to convert them to Christianity.
Further, if one looks at objectively what took place and applied the
test set out in Kazak, then I am of the view that the seminar taken as a
whole breaches section 8 of the <<Act>> because it incites hatred,
contempt and revulsion because of the <<religious>> beliefs of Muslims.
Furthermore, there are many passages in the transcript which are
designed to ridicule Muslims. These statements about Muslims and their
<<religious>> beliefs and practices produce laughter from the audience.
Examples are contained at pp.18-19, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48. As an example,
it is stated that Allah has 99 names and the Hadith "tells us Allah has
actually hundred names, but the hundredth name is not known to Muslim
people, that's only known to a camel. So you have to inquiry from a
camel to find out the hundredth name". There are numerous other stories
throughout the seminar of a similar kind, and looked at objectively are
designed to ridicule Muslims and their beliefs.

In support of the view that much of the seminar was concerned with the
witnessing to Muslims, reference should be made to the evidence of the
witness Mathews, who states that the prominent feature of the seminar
was an injunction to love Muslims. It may well be that this was part of
the reason for the seminar. However, it does not fit well with an
examination of the substantial part of the seminar, which is clearly
anti-Muslim. On any view it mocks their <<religious>> beliefs and
practices, that is, that they live their lives substantially in
accordance with Qur'anic injunctions. Although I have serious
reservations about the explanation about witnessing to Muslims, I am
prepared to accept that, viewed objectively, it could be accepted as
such. However, that fact does not justify what was otherwise said by
Pastor Scot.
Post by vegemite
"...the question under s.8 is not whether the conduct offends
a group of persons but whether it incites hatred or other
relevant emotion of or towards that group of persons."
The Issue is not that Goebbles propagates the "Dirty Jew" tactic,
nor that all Jews were vilified and slandered by it,
but the need to show that it caused Auschwitz.

Good Luck sleeping if you think that is 'Justice', 'Truth', or 'Love'.

And as to the Law, well we shall have to wait and see.
Post by vegemite
In this way, VCAT incorrectly applied case law emanating from
the Racial Discrimination Act. when making the original
guilty verdict (decision, Para. 67)
5) Tribunal Incorrectly Disallowed section 11 provisions of the
Racial
and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.
This is the legislation that the Pastors were charged under and VCAT
found
them guilty under section 8.
"A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person
establishes
that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good
faith-
Mate, if you can read that evidence and tell Aussies that DIATRIBE
OF BILE AND LIES, which would not surprise anyone if it were to come
from Infidel or Anti-Multiculture, is your Church's idea of "Good Faith"
then I have to ask you what you think 'good' and 'faith' mean!?

As for Loving Muslims.... pffft! Pigs Arse!

Pastor Danny's 'Good Faith';

"He was asked whether he had reported any condemnations by Muslims of
the September 11 attacks and he stated that “to be honest he really
could not recall in Australia whether he saw any public condemnation of
terrorist groups”. Asked whether he chose not to report those
condemnations, because they showed Muslims in a positive light, he said
“because I really could not put truth into those statements according to
what I knew at that point of time."

Good faith to this bloke means he doesn't report comments FAVOURABLE
to Muslims because he doubts their veracity?!?! B^D

What a crack-up!

In fact he admits that the GENERAL POPULATION OF MUSLIMS did not
react to 9/11 as he reported, but he chose not to say so publicly!

"Possibly there are those who are positions at high levels and what they
say is not true. The general Muslim population would be very sorry about
what had happened and I fully appreciate their statements”, but he
agreed that he did not report any of them."

Good faith means you say publicly what you know to be true, not
leave it out in order to vilify those human beings in the DELIBERATE
construction of crude and hateful stereotypes.
Post by vegemite
(a) ...
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate
made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for-
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose;
or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event
or
matter of public interest."
VCAT, relying on Bropho, rejected the notion that Pastor Scot was
presenting his seminar in good faith, but VCSA says good faith was
present.
"...Contrary to the approach of the Tribunal, I do not accept that
the
test of bona fide and reasonably for the purposes of s.11 is the same
as
the test laid down by French, J. in Bropho.
Plainly enough, comparative religion and proselytism are both
"religious purposes" and, Accordingly, if, as in this case, a
defendant's alleged purpose is "to explain to Christian people
certain aspects of Islamic teaching and to encourage and equip
Christian believers to share their faith with Muslims",
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAH!

Is that what you think the evidence shows, Vegie? B^p
Post by vegemite
then, subject to what follows, it is difficult to think that it would
not qualify as a "religious purpose".
(Decision Paras 89, 90)
------------------------------------
Summarizing Why The Appeal Succeeded
------------------------------------
VCAT in its original guilty verdict against The Pastors made
1. Incorrect application of case law
a) Kazak Test Should Not Have Been Used
b) Bropho Test Should Not Have Been Used
The effect of misusing Kazak was to prevent VCAT from
considering special characteristics of the Audience at the
seminar in considering whether or not they had been
incited to hatred.
c) Tribunal did not distinguish between hatred of the
religious beliefs of Muslims and hatred of Muslims because of
their religious beliefs.
That's because the venom spouted made no such distinction;

“While many Australians do not want to have children until they are
35-40 years old, due to pursuit of their career in life (some are even
freezing their eggs in order to do so), the Muslim has four wives and
ten to twelve children per family."

It's not just Islam that is feared, it is Muslims, just by being
born!

So you 'Love' Muslims so much you are running the old racist
line that they will 'outbreed us'! B^D

The Gospel according to Pauline Hanson?
Post by vegemite
2. Tribunal considered irrelevant evidence
a) Whether or not the Seminar was 'balanced'
b) Whether or not some persons were offended (the three Muslims)
Both indicate lack of good faith, the rabid and hate filled ignorance
is obviously hurtful to 'the enemy' but if you simply say 'We Love them'
this shows you mean it!? B^p
Post by vegemite
This, last, i.e 2b, was an important step that led to the original
"...it is apparent that the evidence of the three Muslim witnesses
was material to the Tribunal's decision. Much later in the reasons
for decision, the Tribunal returned to the evidence of the three
'I find that the evidence of the three lay witnesses is probative
of the fact, that what was said amounted to incitement.' That
statement
implies the Tribunal may not have come to the same conclusion if it
had understood that such evidence cannot be used for the purposes of
s.8 in the way in which Hely, J. said in Jones v. Scully that
it may be used for the purposes of s.18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975."
3. Tribunal did not consider relevant evidence
a) Scot's repeated statements about loving Muslims
and how, practically, to do so were completely discounted
by VCAT
We slander and tear down the Temples of Satan of those we Love
by bearing False Witness against them. B^p

If this be Christian fundie Love, spare us from it.
Post by vegemite
4. Tribunal Misquoted Pastor Scot
a) VCAT makes factually wrong statements about what
Pastor Scot said in the Seminar. This means that at least
part of Scot's verdict was based on false testimony of VCAT's
own imagining!
I thought you applauded the courts declaration that Scott's
false testimony was irrelevant.. he could be as unbalanced and
hate filled as he wanted, as long as his incitement to hate didn't
actually produce acts of hate on the day which could be proven to result
from the denunciation.
Post by vegemite
b) All 19 specific instances of Pastor Scot's supposed
hatred-inciting statements were rejected by VSCA as
intended to incite hatred against Muslims.
"Pastor Scot did assert, incorrectly, that the population of
Muslims in Australia is growing such as to double every seven
years and said that: "So that is how they are growing, so
because they have control over our Immigration Department
and they bring all type of people"

Just another lie slandering all Muslims, imitating Hanson's
rhetoric of fear that the Heathens are taking over...

So they lie, they misrepresent, they slander and bear false witness,
they vilify all Muslims as Wahabis, they vent their ignorance and
malign calumny.. but the court found that they claim this is all
what they mean by Christian Love and would need to have actually
produced overt acts of violence directed at Muslims to prove
incitement.

I'm happy to send you $10 for beating the system, vegie,
and revealing the utter, ignorance, fear mongering, and
hate-filled hypocrisy of those Christian Wahabis.

Love thy neighbour? Hardly.

Come quickly Lord, you message is dead letter law
in the hearts of those who claim to be your uniquely
Chosen Ones.
Post by vegemite
"Jesus didn't say that 'Go and, and preach gospel
to all the nations'. Before He said that, He said, 'Love your
neighbour like yourself.' That was the first thing and then He
said, 'Go and preach gospel.' So we have to love them li...as
ourselves. In our neighbourhood, wherever they are in need,
we help them OK. Practical love. And then of course we started with
... Love... and love should be not only in theory, in word, but it
should be shown in practice. You invite them for cup of tea.
Before or after you pull down the temples where they worship the
same God as you? pffft!

Lip-Service Love by the smugly self-righteous whose only goal is
conversion of these 'Liars', 'subversives', and 'Satanists'.
Post by vegemite
You invite them for dinner, for lunch. And you may go out for a cup
of coffee or something like that. So develop some relationship with
them and show hosptiatily. And these are practical things we need to
look at.
How many were invited to the seminar in question?

Not counting the convert whose calumny was the most blatant.

So of the three Muslim neighbours who were actually there
because they have heard of Catch on Fires' campaigns of slander
and hate speech, your Love managed to slander, and offend 100%
of them with blatant misrepresentations of their faith.

Listen sport, that is the Love of the Liar for his Lie, not the
targets of it.

Love is the power of attraction, yours is the power of revulsion.

There is no respect for those who Love God, but do so differently to
yourselves.
That is no surprise, Christians have murdered more of their own, from
other sects and denominations, than any other faith has done!

This is not Love, it is pretence, contempt concealed long enough to
attempt conversion.. the ultimate insincerity in Love;

"I love you, Marry me so that I can change you into something worthy
of my love" B^p
Post by vegemite
...
Now there are a few things we must not do when we are sharing gospel
with Muslim people. Let's look what are some of those things.
we need to be very sensible we must not speak negatively.
They don't want to hear anything against
Mohammed, whether true or not.
.. That's very important, so we have to be very sensitive.
Oh ye hypocrites! Here is Scott claiming Muslims are deceitful in
just the manner he is calling on his followers to be;

"lying for sake of Islam is all right. ..he will tell that this is what
Allah says. They have to hide the truth.
Now Bible tells us you know the truth, the truth will set you free, but
Muslim people, when they come [to] some teaching, which they don’t like
people should know... They will not tell the truth. They will hide the
truth. They will tell lies ..."
Post by vegemite
But at
the same time I will never tell you that you tell lies to Muslim.
You are a Christian. If you are a Christian you should always tell
the truth but we need not to tell the whole story about Mohammed.
OK. So that's very important. You have to be respectful to them...
Then you should not criticise their faith.
So, In the seminars you can let rip with the lies, calumny,
stereotyping, slander, insult and be open about how you despise their
beliefs, regard them as Satanic (even though the adore the SAME GOD, and
revere Jesus) and work for the destruction of their places of Worship..

but present a false face to seduce them and tell them 'We Love you,
(it's just your filthy beliefs, practices, Satanism, violence
lies, terrorism, warmongering and breeding in our space, which we
despise and condemn)

Amazingly, you have COMPLETELY overturned Christ's greatest
commandment. Here are people who WORSHIP THE SAME GOD, who revere
Jesus.. and these things you dispute and quibble..!

You deny their SPIRITUAL commitment to God, while
you preach acceptance of their Outward forms, 'clothing',
'culture', dietary laws.. to win them over.. all the things
Christ showed you were insignificant.
Post by vegemite
Then of course do not criticize their culture. If you look d
own upon their culture, that's not good. So God has created all
cultures. God has no preference of one culture over another.
And we say that when Jesus comes in culture, He does not destroy
culture, but He transforms culture. So there is no culture better
than another culture. So we should not discredit their culture.
And then we should not criticise their dress. That's the way
they live. That's fine. And do not witness to, get emotionally
involved with opposite [sex] as I've explained that earlier.
...it's not good testimony to drink in front of a Muslim. So
you have to be very careful. OK. Similarly, if you do eat pork
at home, but if you are eating that don't offer that to a Muslim..."
So there is part of Pastor Scot's incitement to love Muslims, which
the VSC agrees forms just a small example of the MANY OTHER similar
exhortations in his talk.
This is not love, this is salesmanship.
You preach hatred of the very foundation of a man's belief in God,
you despise him for saying you are neighbours in God's Love.

And then you patronise and flatter his dog and his car and his suit,
pretending to be a friend in order to convert him.

All you bring to relationship is what YOU want from it.

Patronising, demeaning, offensive.

Please do not invite me to fellowship, I see no honesty in it.
Post by vegemite
Scot said the following further things in the
"Now please remember, we are not here learning how to fight with
Muslim, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help
them to see the truth."
"Muslims are not our enemies; We love Muslims and hate their
wrong teaching."
"He wants to save every lost people because He loves every one of
them. Our God He loves sinners and He hates sin. Similarly, we do
love Muslim but we hate wrong teaching.
"We have to be very clear. Muslims are not our enemy they
need Jesus."
##### For The Fazzer No. 3, 4 ###################
Fazzer, do you agree that Pastor Scot, above is inciting
his audience to love Muslims ?
No, I believe he is inviting them to share his arrogant, ill-informed,
ignorant, self-righteous patronising of people whose faith is
no less than their own.


"Hi I'm Danny, I Love you folk to your face, but behind
your back i strive to pull down your most sacred faith in God."

Someone should warn them:


"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15)
Post by vegemite
Fazzer, given the above, do you seriously believe
that Scot and Nalliah advocate the mob-fuelled, burning
and destruction of Mosques or the hatred and vilification
of Muslims ?
By their own words they preach hatred and vilification of
Muslims, some based on ignorance, some on misrepresentation,
some on lies and slander, and they advocate the destruction
of not just the temples and mosques of other faiths, but the
faiths themselves.

What that tells us is that AOG type fundies, where the most rabid
seduce the most ignorant, have learnt NOTHING from 2000 years
of missionary destruction of other peoples faith, forcing it into
the idol you have constructed as the only permissible orthodoxy.

When the Lakota Sioux sang

"Wakonda , te-tu,
a-pa-teh a-to-hey"

The Missionaries in their blind fanatical IGNORANCE
thought they worshipped the trees and rocks, and wind,
when in fact they worshipped the Great spirit which made and
animated all of it.

And while your doctrinal predecessors were going forth, multiplying
and subduing the Earth, till now it is subdued to within an INCH
of it's survival.. we learn that their prayer was as ours is;

"Wakonda (Great Spirit), here, poor I stand."

Who gave YOU the authority to stand between that man and his
faithful relationship with God? who gave YOU the authority to
tear down his sweat lodge, his prairie, his forests and every
other place of worship he made into a temple?

Until you can meet that man and acknowledge with GENUINE Love
that you and he are both God's children, sharing your love
of the Great spirit, instead of wanting to stitch a cross on his
tunic and convert him to serving Mammon 6 days a week and God
on Sundays..
Post by vegemite
#################################################
Here are some additional statements made by Scot at VCAT
that show he does not advocate hatred and vilification of
Muslims and in fact advocates the reverse
Mel Glibson saying "I Love Jews" "Some of My best friends are Jews"
after being caught cursing the "Dirty Yids" just won't cut it..
except with fellow hypocrites.


You need to explain all the lies, slander, False Witness and hateful
calumnies.. not find endorsements of Motherhood and Apple pie,
as they are always dripping from the lips of false prophets.
Post by vegemite
"We have to love them...
Don't be afraid of (the) Koran...there are a lot of
things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible."
None more familiar than "We worship the same God, and revere
Jesus"

So why are you pulling down their temples?

For the same reason there are 25, - 32, 000 denominations who
all claim to be the One True Faith and despise the others?

History is full of the dead from your Christian Holy Wars,
isn't it time you got off the Jihad warwagon and learnt how to play nice
with the other kids?

After 1428 years I think you can safely say they are not beating down
the doors to convert to Christianity.. and why should they, they have
for a very long time been more aware of it's doctrines that Christians
have been of Islam, and they have also had plentiful opportunities
to see Christianity in practice.
Post by vegemite
"Toil and Trouble",
Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun
December Wednesday 20, 2006
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2006/12/19
/toil-and-trouble/#more-352
....
Post by vegemite
"As Christians we are not called to hate Muslims."
Hard to explain a history of it, then! B^p

Indeed, you have no doctrinal basis for rejecting Islam,
only the guesswork of generations of priests and Pharisees.

A house built on sand.
Post by vegemite
"We are called to love Muslims with the love of Christ.
Love your Muslim friends and share with them the
true message of the love of God that is found in
Christ."
They already know it. Christ is in the Koran, the Koran
is unknown to the Bible.


You have some learning, not some teaching, to do.

When you KNOW who Muslims are, you might have some change
of Real Love towards them.

Ask yourself, is the Kingdom one of many mansions, or
just the self-identified Chosen Ones.
Post by vegemite
(All above quotes from Decision, para. 108)
And here, from Catch The Fire's Summer 2001 Newsletter
which was also tendered by the complainants as evidence
of Catch The Fire's 'vilification' of Muslims
"We need to love Muslims with all our heart,
However difficult it may be. I love them so much -
even though I almost lost my life and my family trying
to preach to them about Jesus in Saudi Arabia. "
Fazzer - the above seems a similar sentiment to that
expressed by your Grandmother who escaped the Bastinado
in Iran.
It was not my grandmother, but a friend, and you miss the point,

She does not smile at their face, and lie about them behind their back.

She does not pray for Islam or their temples, or their faith in God,
to be pulled down. What lunatic would in a world where Gods Greatest
Commandment is to LOVE AND WORSHIP GOD and love thy Neighbour AS
THYSELF i.e., with the same respect for their love of God as they
preach for your own.

At least match them in intent before self-serving adulation of your 'Love'.

And most importantly, she was not gripped by the delusion that her
holiness was greater than theirs, and that her purpose was to convert them;
Post by vegemite
"Let's love the Muslim, let's reach them to Christ"
I think that not just the Muslims, but all the other
religions you conflate with the Most Great Evil, can
see where you are coming from.
Post by vegemite
"As Christians we are not called to hate Muslims.
But we are called to discern what is true and false
and not to blindly accept beliefs that are destructive a
nd contrary to Jesus' life of love and justice."
So you are leaving the slanderers and False Witnesses?
Post by vegemite
continued in Part 2.
No point me repeating the same points, you are too perfect to
countenance change. We Evil Ones just need to stay out of your way,
in Palestine, In Iraq, in Washington, anywhere where the
Christian Wahabists are as prescriptive and dogmatic as their
Muslim counterparts, just with slicker "Love-Brand" PR.




I work in a Christian faith community.


Like all Chistian denominations I have been part of which
now includes Anglican, Catholic, Uniting, AOG, JW, ..
I have some doctrinal differences.
Like all faith communities, which now includes
Muslim, Christian, Bahai, Sihk, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist et al
I have more in common than what keeps us apart.

My love is based on respect for them.

You have to KNOW people (and by that I mean WORK ALONGSIDE,
SHARE LIFE, with them.. not just read about them from some
author from your own tribe) in order to truly LOVE THEM.

I am not one of them, in another sense I am fully integrated,
often asked to run workshops for the senior youth.
I do not seek to convert them.

As an 'outsider' I can commend their strengths and traditions
to their youth with sincerity and credibility.. they know I
have no agenda, nothing to sell them.

I do not see their faith as wrong, merely different..
in all essentials it is the same as mine.

My faith informs my work and it is well regarded.
In turn, my own faith is informed and
challenged by their perspectives. Their faith tradition
also belongs to me, and I am not so blind and stubborn as
to think that others have nothing to offer, certainly not
so arrogant as to think their 'difference' is 'Satanic' or evil.

I have often found the richest insights from the prayers
and worship of others.

Gender teaches us that God is at her most fecund, most productive,
when working with fundamental DIFFERENCE! ;-)

I prefer to work with those of all faiths who are comfortable
working with those of all faiths.

I avoid those who are convinced they are the unique Chosen Ones.

I don't judge the insular and the dogmatic, for all I know they may be
right.. but if you take the view that only one lot of them can be,
then most people on the planet are wasting their time believing in
untruth.

On the other hand, if you take the view that most of them are right,
that we are a spiritual ecology with the Diversity which God loves
EVERYWHERE we look, then the world becomes incredibly rich with
possibilities, and the Kingdom is already unfolding.


Shalom and Salaam.





------------

"THE polls show John Howard is likely to be beaten
by Labor, now under its sharpest leader in a decade.
Facing defeat, the Prime Minister yesterday changed
not only his team but its tone." -Andrew Bolt 24/1/2007


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."

"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
David Moss
2007-02-11 04:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
A technicality is where we see such clear evidence
of Catch on Fire traducing and slandering Muslims, but the
appeal decides the test used in the original hearing
"would a reasonable person be incited', was not the test
which should be used.
How odd. It seems that members of the Catch the Fire congregation are
not considered reasonable people by the court. Thats a pretty stiff
insult.

If preaching hate to a random audience of Australians is deemed to be
illegal, giving the same message to a bunch of right wing zealots who
are afraid their religion will be bumped off the pedestal by a rival
faith ought to be considered worse.

Here in aus.politics we have already seen what such a message has done
to Petzl.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://sunnybar.dynip.com/politics
vegemite
2007-02-13 00:03:41 UTC
Permalink
G'Day David,
Post by David Moss
Post by fasgnadh
A technicality is where we see such clear evidence
of Catch on Fire traducing and slandering Muslims, but the
appeal decides the test used in the original hearing
"would a reasonable person be incited', was not the test
which should be used.
How odd. It seems that members of the Catch the Fire
congregation are not considered reasonable people by
the court. Thats a pretty stiff insult.
David, neither the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
nor the Victorian Supreme Court said that the seminar attendees
were not reasonable. That insult is a product of your
own imagination.

VCAT applied the 'reasonable person' test (Kazak)
to the seminar attendees in order to find Nalliah and
Scot guilty, in doing so determining that 'a random audience
of Australians' (in your terms), or in the Common Law
language 'the man on the Clapham Omnibus' would be likely
to be incited to hatred by the seminar contents.

The VSC said that VCAT was incorrect to apply this test,
partially because Kazak explicitly ignores the
'special proclivities' of the audience that would
mediate any allegedly vilifying speech.

In doing so, the VSC notes that the vast majority of the
seminar attendees were Christians and that the 'special
proclivities' of that Christian audience should be justly noted.
In this case, the VSC found that special proclivity of the
audience was that it was assembled to hear a discussion
about Comparative Religion, in which case quotations from the
Koran and associated commentary constitute 'good faith'
under the act.

As the VSC put it:
"s.8 does not prohibit statements about religious
beliefs per se or even statements which are critical or
destructive of religious beliefs. Nor does it prohibit statements
concerning the religious beliefs of a person or group of persons
simply because they may offend or insult the person or
group of persons"

David, would you like to withdraw your speculation that
the courts found the seminar attendees 'not reasonable' ?
Post by David Moss
If preaching hate
David, Nalliah and Scot did not preach hate.
In fact, the VSC found that Nalliah and Scot were inciting
their audience to LOVE Muslims and were successful in doing so.

As Judge Nettle from the VSC put it in his decision para. 63:

"...I have listened to the tape recording of the Seminar,
[and] on any analysis his plea to love Muslims and to
"minister" to them comes across as sincere enough as do
the sounds of his audience's reaction to it."

(from decision para 79):
"...on any OBJECTIVE assessment of the
Seminar taken as a whole [Scot said] despite the
inadequacies of Islamic doctrine (as he perceived
them), his audience should love Muslims and
seek to inculcate in them a Christian understanding
of the Deity (as he conceived of it).

Here is a small sample of what Scot actually said in the
supposedly vilifying seminar:

"...practical love [toward Muslims] is very important.
I have heard so many strories in Australia when people
that have come out of detention centre and they have seen
love of Christ in people, people have shared with
them their resources, and their food and they have
loved them, they have cared [for] them, and so many
Muslim, young Muslim, old Muslim, women, children they
have become Christian because they have seen practical
love of Christ.

It's very important. OK. So it's not just a theory,
that you have very good theory. No it's a practical
thing, so you have to show that practice."

"Jesus didn't say that 'Go and, and preach gospel
to all the nations'. Before He said that, He said,
'Love your neighbour like yourself.' That was the
first thing and then He said, 'Go and preach gospel.'
So we have to love them li...as ourselves. In our
neighbourhood, wherever they are in need, we help
them OK. Practical love. And then of course we
started with ... Love... and love should be not
only in theory, in word, but it should be shown in
practice. You invite them for cup of tea.
You invite them for dinner, for lunch. And you may
go out for a cup of coffee or something like that.
So develop some relationship with them and show
hosptiality. And these are practical things
we need to look at."

David, would you agree that the VSC found that
the seminar incited love toward Muslims, not hate ?

David, would you agree that Scot's statements
above are consistent with an attitude of love
toward Muslims, not hate ?

If so, will you withdraw your inference that
Nalliah and Scot preached hate towards Muslims ?
Post by David Moss
If preaching hate to a random audience of Australians is
deemed to be illegal, giving the same message to a
bunch of right wing zealots...afraid...
Like Anglicans? You're jumping to conclusions here, David.
I have not seen a breakdown of attendance by
denomination at the seminar and I doubt you have.
FYI, CTF is an inter-denominational (ecumenical)
ministry. People from many denominations attend
its activities. Here is a list of churchmen and
denominations present at the CTF prayer day
which John Howard sent a DVD message to:

Crossway Baptist Church (influential Melbourne
Baptist church)
Churches Of Christ
AOG State Chairman
Several Other Penetecostal Denominations
Uniting Church
Kelvin Merrett - Major Salvation Army
Graham Harris - Chairman, Apostolic Churches Of Victoria
Stephen Hale - Anglican Doicese Of Melbourne
Roland Seeow - Full Gospel Assembly
Rob Thomas (Moderator-General Of The Presbyterian Church
of Australia).

The attendence of these churchmen at an event ORGANIZED
BY Catch The Fire indicates that these denominational
representatives have no quarrel with Nalliah and certainly
do not consider him as a lunatic hate-monger working
the fringes, of similar ilk to the KKK (as Fazzer would say)
or a 'right wing zealot' as you say, perjoratively.

Now the testimony of an Anglican parishoner, one Annette
Potter, who was present at the CTF seminar leading to
the vilification charges is as follows:

"She said there was no religious basis for her attendance
and she said she was shocked at the fact that it was alleged
that the seminar vilified Muslims. She said that she regarded
the allegation as totally untrue and an affront to her
because the allegations are not grounded on fact."

David, I would doubt you would regard Anglicans
as 'right wing zealots' but you are content to ignorantly
tar Ms Potter so without any basis in truth.

Of course, given that Nalliah and Scot are Pentecostal
Pastors we may presume that there were a number of persons
from a Pentecostal background in attendence at the seminar;
one may even speculate they were in the majority, but this
is indeed speculation. Indeed I have been to a similar
seminar where nearly all attendees were in fact Anglicans
from various Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Probably it
is the Pentecostals who were present that you perjure
as 'right wing zealots...afraid...'

Even here though, you are too quick to jump to conclusions.
Pentecostals may or may not be 'right wing' politically.
My wife votes Labor. Many of our friends vote Green.
Family First speaks up for the refugees. I mainly
vote for the Coalition but have voted Green and
Labor on occasions.

You are probably correct that most Pentecostals
are conservative (right-wing) on so-called 'family issues'
such as homosexuality, abortion etc., but then so are
most Christian denominations. Are the Presbyterians
'right wing zealots' too ? The Church Of Christ ?
The Baptists ? ...and are these people
likewise 'afraid' ?

So Dave, your speculations on the political leanings
and emotional state of the seminar audience are merely
that, speculations. You really should desist from
applying perjorative labels to those you have never met.
Post by David Moss
who are afraid their religion will be bumped off
the pedestal by a rival faith ought to be
considered worse.
David you appear to think that the seminar audience
are existing in a fearful, perhaps paranoid state
and hence are ripe fruit for a hate-monger to incite
them to violence.

In that case you will be relieved to know that
the audience was successfully incited to love Muslims
(as found by the VSC) and that the response recommended by
Nalliah and Scot toward Muslims was 'love Muslims,
evangelise and pray', not kill, hate and destroy
as so inappropriately determined by the VCAT.

Really the characterisation of the audience and the
presenters exists only in your imagination, David.
You should admit as much. I have posted ample proof
in this thread if you should muster enough interest
to read it, instead of lazily firing from the hip
at the seminar audience (and hitting only your foot)
as you have done.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA
/2006/284.html
Post by David Moss
Here in aus.politics we have already seen what
such a message has done to Petzl.
Good news! Nalliah and Scot did not preach hate.
Go and read the VSC decision yourself or excerpts
from it posted in this thread.

If Petzl attended a CTF seminar he would be
encouraged to love Muslims, evangelise and pray for
them and he would be much the better for it.

As for the messages of hate you mention, they
come from elsewhere than CTF, as the VSC agrees.

Regards,

Veg.

fasgnadh
2007-01-19 09:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
G'Day Fazzer,
Me cousin, Bruce, says G'Day too :-)
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims. An
evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.
And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.
100% with you on all the above Fazzer :-)
But that's all just opinion, lets look at the facts, and then compare
what Nahlia said and did, with what you claim, not having met him,
were his intentions, based on nothing but his membership of the same
tribe as yourself;


The Newsletter

391 Insofar as the newsletter is concerned, this was written by the
secondnamed respondent. The article is entitled "2002 - Will Australia
be a Christian Country?". On the previous page he describes Muslims as
"the enemy" due to some incident which took place in Saudi Arabia.
Coming back to the article, he refers to Muslims coming to Australia by
boats and he gives numbers who come in this way, and questioned as to
why they are getting visas when our brothers and sisters in Christ are
being slaughtered in mainly Islamic countries. Further, those Christians
who tried to obtain a refugee visa cannot get one. He states, however,
that Muslims obtain visas from the very countries where Christians are
being raped, tortured and killed. He then asked his readers the
following question: "What stops the Muslims from doing the same in
Australia?".

Muslims are 'the enemy'? This doesn't fit with the Pollyanna
claptrap you spin below the "We really Love Muslims, we just
want to separate them from Islam" (is this some bizzare recent
mutation of love the sinner hate the sine, because Nahlia et al
are saying the Sinners ARE the enemy!

392 Further, he refers to the expansion of mosques in England. He
said many mayors are Muslims. In referring to the expansion of mosques,
he states that some churches have been closed down. They (Muslims) also
very cleverly infiltrated Parliament and other influential places (even
in Australia). This is in order to stop the name of Jesus being
mentioned, because Islam knows the name of Jesus is trouble for him and
also to spy on what the western governments are doing. He also relates a
story of a pastor being told by an Imam that "Holy war is, we will make
everyone in Australia worship Allah. Through peace or through violence".
Finally he talks about birthing practices as being such that Muslims are
increasing in numbers while "Aussies are on the decline".

This is racist/bigoted claptrap worthy of the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion! It is bad enough that a Wolf
in the skin of a lamb preaches this to his flock,
but for the Prime Minister to lend his mantle of authority
to such vileness is a DISGRACE!

"Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements are likely
to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims. They seek first of all to
create fear in those who read the article of being harmed by Muslims.
Further, that they are increasing in numbers while Aussies are on the
decline, suggesting that they are seeking to take over Australia, which
is consistent by the quote said to be made by an Imam. I find that this
breaches section 8 of the <<Act>>.

Amen!

"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

By their fruits shall ye know them (Matt 7:16)
....and no vile liar comes from Christ!


393 Furthermore, there is no protection to be obtained by reliance upon
section 11 because I find that such statements were not engaged in
reasonably and in good faith. As I have indicated, I find Pastor Nalliah
not to be a credible witness. I do so because of the way in which he
wrote this newsletter and the way in which he answered questions about
the matter in cross-examination. In my view, he was not subjectively
honest and the newsletter, when viewed objectively, does not satisfy me
that it was engaged in "good faith".


The Article

394 An Insight Into Islam by Richard". The date of the article is not
without significance, that is 15 days after the events in New York,
which make the context important in the sense that it is a response to
an atrocity. It was, according to the evidence of Pastor Nalliah,
intended for distribution in the United States, however he placed it on
the firstnamed respondent's website in either <<2001>> or 2002. I find
the article to be clearly a breach of section 8 of the <<Act>> and is a
much clearer example of the type of conduct which the legislature is
seeking to prohibit. The article suggests that Islam is an inherently
violent religion and it was not possible to separate Islam from
terrorist groups. He implies that Muslims endorse the killing of people
based upon their religion, e.g. the tribe of Jews referred to in the
Qur'an. He characterises terrorism as the very nature of Islam itself
and suggests that the prophet is a paedophile, that the Qur'an teaches
that the killing of innocent people is sanctioned and it teaches hate,
not love. There is no attempt in the article to distinguish between
moderate and extremist Muslims. The content of the article, when viewed
objectively, incites hatred against and serious contempt for people who
are Muslims. Again, as with the newsletter, I find that the respondent
does not obtain the benefit of the exemption because the person's
conduct could not be regarded as reasonable and in good faith.


Now, your turn. Find out why the appeal set the matter to be heard
again, and come back and tell me if it changes the evidence
and the courts finding ONE WHIT!
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down... Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o
Mate, I know you never approved of me going to the fundy church
On the contrary, A faith which is inherited with mothers milk is
a blind tradition, my children were taught to investigate religions
for themselves, with critical mind..
"see through your own eyes, not through the eyes of others"

Some people need simple, emotive experience, some place hooks in their
bodies to induce trance, some fast.. I make no judgement on the
many paths to God, clearly She loves diversity. ;-)

And I have been among Catholics at Mass, Anglicans, Methodists,
Presbyterians, Uniting, Jehovah's Witnesses, AOG and had Mormons in
for a chat, (no hash cookies). And that's just the 'Christian'
denominations.
Of course I have my preference, but that's all it is, just my
preferences. This is different,
I think it's dangerous to speak unless you have experience
or knowledge of what you are talking about;
Post by vegemite
but yer off the rails a bit here.
Do you have experience of Nahlia's ministry, particularly his
seminars, knowledge of Nahlia's character or have read the
court documents since we last discussed the matter?
Post by vegemite
Haven't met Naliah,
And you already admitted you haven't read the documents of the tribunal
hearing I posted.. because unlike you I prefer to speak from knowledge
based on facts not 'knowing' based on religious belief that I'm right.


http://tinyurl.com/33e8nt

My apologies the URL originally posted was truncated.
Post by vegemite
but I know what he's talking about.
That would be like Torquemada, The Grand Inquisitor, knowing the
guilt of a witch just by the curdling of his cow's milk.

And you know what he means because you are also well versed in
witch-hunting.

We have come this far and still I have to INTRODUCE materials relating
to THIS case.... the judgements on Nahlia were based in fact,
but sadly those BY him were the most vile, ignorant TOSH, and for you
to pronounce on them from 'general experience' as a Christian
of similar persuasion is unconvincing, and somewhat scary.
Post by vegemite
When a fundy preacher says the TAB or the pub or whatever is a Satanic
stronghold, he's not saying that Trev or Noelene or Marg or Uncle Brian
or the Kumars next door are Satan's little helpers or that we've got to
burn down the building or whatever,
Oh yes, he is preaching Muslims are The Enemy! 8^o
He gave perfectly clear instructions that his followers
were to track down the actual, physical, Strongholds
of 'Satan' where 'witch-craft' is practised!!! And mark them
on a MAP!

"Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living in (brothels,
gambling places, bottle shops,"

He doesn't mention Liberal party offices.. Kirribilli House..
where Pontius Pilate condemns Iraqis to death!? Why is that?

Why is a quiet drink with mates Satanic, but killing hundreds
of thousands of Muslims gets you invited to Nahlia's church?

I smell Brimstone and Sulphur! B^p

" mosque, temples-Freemason/Buddhist/ Hindu etc, witchcraft)," the
leaflet says."

WITCH-CRAFT, fer Cripes sake! in 2007!

These blokes are more MEDIEVAL than the Taliban!

If they were Muslims people would be condemning their attacks
on women (the witches who were burnt or drowned by the Godly
Chosen Ones were invariably women) and demanding they be thrown
out of the country for advocating a fate worse than rape!)

So, How many SEMINARS do you run on pulling down Witchcraft?

Or Hotels? TABs? Masonic lodges? Nah, just the Muslims, right!?

And are you even aware of what Nahlia's 'seminars of the protocols
of the Elders of Palestine' consisted of?


" He urged followers to circle the place on a map."

Muslims marking locations on a map get arrested under Howard's
sedition laws where it is ASSUMED they meant to attack those
locations.

Now tell us, why do you need to mark the targets on a map, if
all you are going to do is PRAY!? Does God Allmighty, Creator
of the Universe, need a map to find Lakemba?

"If you are ready to pray against it, do so. If not, bring it to your
church and ask your intercessors, through the pastor, to pull these
strongholds down," the document says."

A bit of a Group hate fest; Blow the Conch, Kill the Pig.

What would Kenny's kid think, sitting in the hyped up
atmosphere of a "Shake the Family Fist" service
where Kenny is accused of supporting the Satanic drinking
and gambling at the Melbourne Cup? "What does your dad do, Kenny"
"He pumps shit for Satan"

No wonder this bloke Nahlia is accused of religious villification,
I think CUB should sue! B^D

If you don't think you can pray it down, bring it to the
Leadership (with the Map, showing where it is) to 'pull
it down'. And guess what, someone attacks mosques, even
firing shots at them.


"Mr Nalliah has been photographed with both Mr Howard and Treasurer
Peter Costello. He even invited and introduced Mr Costello to a National
Day of Thanksgiving prayer meeting on May 29."

Who was handling whose snake? Which one did the tongue thing?

What is the Prime Minister of Australia doing endorsing a bunch
of religious extremists who hunt witches in 2007 and
want to pull down every Hotel, Tab and brothel in the country?

If unions just want to have one half day strike to protest
One of them that is unsafe, Howard treats them like Satan and
throws them in a pit of fire.. but here we have the PM and
treasurer endorsing an attack on the entire hospitality sector,
every hotel and tourist attraction that might sell alcohol
...or harbour a Witch! B^D

" what he's saying is that the business has
Post by vegemite
been set up by Satan to do harm to Trev and Noelene and Marg and
everybody else.
Listen Keyser, you are a very loyal lap dog, but by your own admission
you haven't read what was said. You have hearsay and ("whoo whoo whoo
whoo") .. x-files 'knowledge' ..via the Ether.. and intuited from the
shape of the Virgin discovered in an Avacado...

I prefer the facts, actual quotes of what was said.

What is the Prime Minster and Treasurer doing endorsing
an anti-business group who are actively trying to close
CUB, Cascade, every brewer, vineyard and Public house in the
country, ban betting on the Caulfield and Melbourne Cup,
tattslotto and TWO-UP on ANZAC DAY! ?
Post by vegemite
In fact that would be the same as calling Jesus 'Satanic'
Indeed, which is why Nahlaih, Scot, Catch on Fire, Family Fist and
the Assemblies of Gog are heretical cults, not true Christian Churches.

They seek to align themselves with Powers and Principalities, they
follow Caesar, not Christ.
Post by vegemite
'cause Jesus went to the pub and had a brew or two as well.
Indeed he was more like Muslims, who don't drink, but don't
go round demanding that we all stop, and the pubs and bottle shops be
torn down, like the fundie Xtian wowsers do!


Today Christ would again go with the broken, the rejected, the harassed
and the oppressed.. Muslims, tax collectors and prostitutes.

Not LABEL them as the ENEMY!!!! 8^o
Post by vegemite
In fact that's what many of His enemies> did at the time
when Jesus popped down to the Jerusalem RSL for a steak sanger and a
pint: called him 'Satanic'.
Exactly! Nahlia's language is that of the ENEMIES of the true Christ!

Well spotted!

"Mr Nalliah, who has been defending his views in the Victorian courts
against a vilification action by the Islamic Council of Victoria, said
yesterday the document was private and reflected the "language we speak
in the (Pentecostal) church"."

That's the worry sport.. we have seen how you speak in private..!

mainstream Christianity has evolved to inter-faith dialogue
with other faiths, you are vilifying them as evil and calling for
their holy places of worship to be pulled down.

No wonder Howard supports these sanctimonious Jihadists.

Why does the PM support calling every Aussie who has a beer
part of Satans's Strongholds, along with 'Witches'?

He doesn't have a bloody CLUE about Aussie values,
Post by vegemite
I doubt Nahlia's unaware of that.
No, Nahlia thinks the business are operated by Satan but Marg an' that
are basically
OK normal people like you and Mrs Fazzer.
Mo, he describes Muslims as the Enemy, a threat. with no distinction
between extremists half way round the planet and my neighbours and friends.


So, Freemasons lodges and Witches covens are Satans's temples
but Masons and Witches are just plain folks!? pfffft

Nice one Keysar, give my regards to Mrs Trad!
Post by vegemite
(How is she anyrate - Oh by the way, me
an' the missus have a little bloke now - you should see him wolf down a
Banana -
Guiness Book of records material there, mate :-))
When my youngest was in Kindy her best friend, a little Muslims girl,
was Mary in the Christmas pageant, and my daughter an attending Angel.

That's innocculation against bigotry, if some nasty ignorant
religious fanatic tried to tell her that Muslims were Satanic,
the enemy, she wouldn't buy it, her opinion is based firmly in
reality, not religious poison.
Post by vegemite
I remember once some bloke in the great Usenet Outback said
" friends of mine have been tortured, and members
of their families killed in Iran.. by fundamentalist Muslims who were
absolutely certain they carried out "Gods will"...
Inded, I have an even handed distaste for fundie fanatics of all stripes.

I'm not hopping inyo Nahlia because I have a prejudice that muslims are
all, stereotypically nice, but because he has a prejudice no different
from some of their extremists.
Post by vegemite
wheras most of my spiritual training has been in Christian
communities... with nary a pogrom in sight.... '
But the story of my elderly grandma who escaped the bastinado
in Iran is that she bears no malice to Muslims.. she has even
forgiven those who actually tortured her. And while she loves Jesus,
and the Koran, she's neither Christian or Muslim.

Love comes in Unmarked boxes.


I like to speak of people from experience, ..as I find them,
and among many wonderful experiences it was the Pentecostal fundies
that were most disturbing and cultlike..with their American videos,
I shook the dust of the brief AOG sojourn off my feet..

But I see the link between prosperity theology and
aspirational voters.
Post by vegemite
That's modern-day Aussie Christianity,
No, modern day Aussie Christianity is muscular and action orientated,
And it's ecumenical and inter-faith.

And, most Importantly, IT SPEAKS TRUTH To POWER, which is why
Howard has used funding to marginalise those faiths with a strong
Social Justice tradition, and embrace some modern sects who never
rock the boat.

No one really believes that one cult has all the truth and everyone
else is damned to hell.. It's been 2000 years since Christ reminded
people that the ONLY sense in which they were Chosen is for service,
foot washing Muslim refugees, not damning them for the acts of a few.

Les Twentyman is Christ in Action, the manifestation of modern
Christianity. Waleed Ali is modern Christianity! 8^o

Even the POPE and the Vatucan, after 2000 years of blind hatred,
now acknowledge that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

To run seminars on "What is Wrong with Muslim Spirituality" is
no different from the Doctrinaire who condemned Christ for
breaking the law and the Sabbath, because all they could grasp,
is the Letter of the Law, (Nahlias prejudiced and ignorant
understanding of the Koran) not it's spirit!

HINDUISM

"He must show no anger to one who is angry.
He must bless the man who curses him..."

CONFUCIANISM

"Love is its own reward.. Love offers peace...
A heart set on love can do no wrong."

TAOISM

"Repay evil with good..
Heaven arms with love those it would not see destroyed."

BUDDHISM
"If a man foolishly does me a wrong.
I will return to him the protection of my ungrudging love."

JUDAISM

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself..
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land...
thou shalt love him as thyself."

ISLAM

"Verily my love overcometh my anger."

SIKHISM

"Serve ye well all creatures, both big and small.
Give pain to no being that lives and feels."

CHRISTIANITY

"A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another.
As I have loved you, so you shall love one another."

BAHÁ'Í

"..for love is light, no matter in what abode it dwelleth."
Post by vegemite
even amongst me and my fundy
mates. Nary a pogrom in sight.
And so it is in Islam, lots of nice folks, but somewhere
a bunch of misfits listening to a Hilaly or a Nahlia

Was Pilate a monster? Were the San Hedron? the Pharisees?
Or were they just limited men of weak understanding,
clumsily teaching others their own limited prejudices.

Germany was a CIVILIZED European nation.

If you wanted to run a Christian Seminar on Islam you
would invite some Muslims to speak!

I shared a platform recently with a Catholic and Muslim,
part of a dialogue between disparate groups of young women.

People complain about UN talk fests, but that long slow
process is the alternative to WAR, it is how you learn
who your brother IS, so that you may love them!

You cannot love Muslims by viewing them as Satanic enemies
who must be saved from Islam.

Because if Modern Christianity or Modern Islam or Modern
anything, is not about WORKING TOGETHER as equals, then
it is for the fire.

The arrogant 'conversion of heathens' doctrine is a burden
of guilt which Christianity carries around the globe as it
realizes that those OTHER people already had God, he just didn't
have an English name in their language

Catholic Priests in Ireland rediscover Anam Cara, pre-Christian
spirituality, and weep that they were so arrogant and so
judgemental and so doctrinaire as to smash it's beauty
and nail a wooden cross on it's coffin.

I don't give a flying fuck about theology anymore, all I want
to know when you start telling me about your theology is;
How do you treat people.

And Praying to Pull down Mosques, Hindu Temples is total,
ignorant disrespect.
Post by vegemite
I would be amazed If Naliah was trying
to start one.
(Can see it now: Samara Jacobs - kid's chucrh teacher with her flamin'
Britney Spears perfume and Sportsgirl handbag frenziedly flaying at the
unyielding Sandstone walls of the local bottle-o 8^)
Mrs Goebbles was a smartly dressed hottie, and Mr Goebbles a
devoted father.

I am not trying to MATCH Nahlia and Scot's attacks on Muslims
with one on the AOG and Family Fist!

There are thousands of people who lack a spiritual connect
who find Showtime on Sunday to be a stimulating substitute
for spiritual growth. Not my problem.

But when it moves into bed with Caesar,
all the drinkers, gamblers, minorities, atheists and heretics
better watch out.

It starts with little maps, with Satan's Strongholds marked for removal.
Post by vegemite
Mind you - American contemporary fundy Christianity with abortion
clinics...so yes,
it can happen anywhere. I wouldn't deny it. But Naliah attempting to
whip one up in this case -
as unlikely as Phar Lap winning the next three Melbourne
Cups, mate.
I thought you said you didn't know him.

How many people can spot a paedophile on the train, a
serial murderer on TV, a rapist, even when living in the
same house.

What amazes me when some American Religious Right televangelist
is found with his dick in a choirboy, or his hand in the till,
is how many of the flock still line up to be shorn, insisting
that it couldn't be him, he's so nice.

If ONE child gets spat upon by bigots who believe the teaching that
Muslims are a Satanic enemy, that religion is not of Christ.

In fact shots are fired at Mosques, by someone,
who shares that view.
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.
Been though that, above, I think.
No, the bit you missed was where he was actually CHARGED,
and real EVIDENCE presented, by people who HAD met him,

unlike your views on what you want him to be like.. ie.. you,
which may be a very nice, sincere person.

You may be a nice bloke, like Keyser Trad, just a bit too stupid
to realise what you are defending, while not really knowing what it is.
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite. Who is next?
Well, I think its OK to *attack* beliefs in a Democracy
Sure it is. I attack heresies which prey on
people's needs, which set themselves up as ultimate
arbiters of Gods Will, and ally themselves with Rome,
but I don't equate YOU to the ultimate incarnation of
unmitigated EVIL - Satan- and place you with witchcraft which has
horrific connotations of total destruction.

We have all witnessed what Bush's revival of this fundie
language of judgement and retribution means.. One day it's
'just the way he talks.. the next it's a pile of bodies.'

That would be too much like letting Mel Gibson run seminars on Jews
calling for everyone to focus their minds on 'bringing down' Synagogues
because we really like Jews but just want to save them from their
Satanic Jewishness..... and then wondering what that strange smell
coming out of Auschwitz was.
Post by vegemite
You're not allowed to *incite hatred* based on someone else's beliefs
I believe the courts made the correct decision to overturn the guilty
verdicts against Nahlia and Scot.
Christians are not supposed to lie, Keyser.

The verdict was not overturned, an appeal determined a re-hearing
on a technicality, not on the substance.

The substance is to be re-heard.
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.
Too true, Fazzer.
Then you need to be Canny, like Christ was, and understand what
Fraser warned about when he said Howard was planning to use
fear and hysteria to run an election with Muslims as his latest
scapegoat.. and then you have the context in which to understand
why Howard is courting a group who teaches Mosques and Muslims,
are Satanic.
Post by vegemite
Post by fasgnadh
Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.
Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.
This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Naliah got a raw deal in the original court case.
Not on the evidence presented.
Post by vegemite
If I could show that was true
would you withdraw the KKK appellation you've lumbered him with here ?
I have great faith in the justice system, if you have material
relevant to the case, you should present it.

The original hearing did a sound job, the appeal court applied the
fine point of the legal process, if you can add anything to
mitigate the damming indictment in the court record
at the top of this post I would of course consider it.

But general assertions about other, unrelated matters does not cut it,

If he's kind to his kids, that's for mitigation at sentencing time
when setting penalties.

To have Justice, tempered by Mercy, you must first have Justice.
Post by vegemite
Anyrate, I think that's about it. So I'm off like a bucket of
prawns..(Oh yeah, speaking of seafood, actually
caught my first fish for myself not so long back.
Sounds delicious, Somewhere, someone is conducting a seminar
pointing out the OT penalty for eating shellfish is death.
Post by vegemite
An undersized Bream. Geez fishing is a lot more interesting when you
actually catch something :-)
Oo-roo!
Shalom and Salaam




------------


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"


"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."


"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
unknown
2007-01-19 10:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by vegemite
G'Day Fazzer,
Me cousin, Bruce, says G'Day too :-)
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
In one sentence what is your point?
fasgnadh
2007-01-19 10:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by vegemite
G'Day Fazzer,
Me cousin, Bruce, says G'Day too :-)
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
In one sentence what is your point?
It's bedtime for kiddies with short attention span.




------------


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"


"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."


"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
Oldfart
2007-01-19 23:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Bit of agreement here... I should answer that.
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
CORRECT! Thde same for all including fundamentalist Muslims. Is it the
case? No.

The rioting non Muslims of the Cronulla riots were seeked out and
persued with maximum vigor (which was the correct action) but a lot
less, if any, effort was made to identify and assest the Muslim youth
groups who harassed and attacked Cronulla Surf Life Savers repeatedly
and who ran around smashing things and attacking people. Furthermore,
why Isn't Sheik El Helali (his real Egyption name) in prison for
enciting religious, if not racial, violence?


How come that, if a white man calls an Indian, Arab, Chinese or
whatever a "shithead" he will be prosecuted but if a, say (example
only), dark Indian calls a white man "white shit" and the white man
complains then a lot more proof than white witnesses are needed, In any
case, red faced officials inform the white man that there are no
"procedures" in place to deal with that.

So far to equality....
Post by fasgnadh
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Yes, but what is vilification or hate speech? According to YOU
vilification and hate is already expressed if one does not share YOUR
opinion. That is not a limit, that is the prohibition of free speech.
Post by fasgnadh
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
Where is or was the USSA? What are gulags?

AH, IK understand, its the new United Socialist Soviet Australia with a
Muslim Government and fasgnadh as the minister for State Security
chraged with the elimination of Infidels and anyone opposing the system
like In Iran, the future Australian кгб (KGB).

Listen, pal, you call me uneducated. You mean USSR (Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics), in the cyrillic alphabet is was CCCP (Союз
Советских Социалистических
Республик). I thought you have a good education? What
University did you go to? Was the school you went to called a "Tree
School"?

A gulac sounds like some disagreeable food. I think yiou mean a
Ghoulac.
Post by fasgnadh
unless they are women and children fleeing to our shores as refugees.
Yes, mainly from Muslim countries because for Muslim men women are
shit.
Post by fasgnadh
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Not yet and it will stay that way unless Sheik Elk Helali and people
like you get into any position of infuence.
Post by fasgnadh
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
In other words, make surfe certain issues on everyone's mind are not
talked about becasue there could be someone who doesn't like it or is
afraid the truth might come out.

Political coirrectness says that one should not say anything that might
hurt someone else. Where does that leave us? Let's face it, just having
another view hurts many and that includes you. This means that anyone
who thinks differently compared to you and your contemporaries should
just shut up.

Let's afce it, you stared to abuse me and call me names, a proof beyond
reasonable doubt that you do not tolerate any views other than yours.
Come on, admit it....
Post by fasgnadh
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
Toni Blair blessed Ian Paisley? Jee, I didn't know Toni was a Prioest?
I always thought Ian calls himself a "Reverent"???
Post by fasgnadh
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
OK, all that is not a proof apart from the fact that I agree with you
on one specific item. Paisley and the IRA belong to those groups who
intentionally ytwist religion in order toi excuse the unexcusable.
Don't call Paisley and the IRA Christians, they surfe are not.

However, you complain when someone calls Muslims bad because a small
group of people who happen to be Muslims has done the wrong thing.
However, at the same time you here accuse the Irish Catholics. Nearly
everyone in Ireland is catholic; are you trying to say that all Irish
catholics are IRA murderers?
Post by fasgnadh
PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims.
I agree gthat is not correct.
Post by fasgnadh
An
evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.
I agree with that too. However, if anyone of a group protects those who
committed crimes and fails to immediately do everythiong in their power
than they are guilty as guilty as the criminal, it's called assessory
after the fact.
Post by fasgnadh
And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.
You must be joking, most Muslims so far got away with murdcer!
Post by fasgnadh
Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down...
What Pastors are that? They are not Christians but call themselves
Christians possibly to give them power, money or influence. Note thaqt
main stream, Churches actually promote equality amongs all.
Post by fasgnadh
Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o
If there are these Chjristian extremists I have not heard about then
they too should be prosecuted.
Post by fasgnadh
Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.
You are not talking about a real Church, you are talking about some
cult.
Post by fasgnadh
Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite.
Anyone who tries to prohibit Aussies to have a beer and a bang, foprces
onto them a lifestyle, smells and looks they don't want of change their
home into Manila, Beijing or Mumbai, I hope.

Many migrants from all parts of the world immigrated into Australia
becasue they were fed up with the corrupt and unfriendly lifestyle and
culture in their old country. Those poor people are now cheated and
defrauded because their old country looks, values, lifestyle and
corruption follows them now into Australia like a stinking and fatty
fart.

Immigrant countries are pl;aces for those who want to get out of their
old country and tell their old society to shove things up their arse
and not for people who just would like a red sportscar too.
Post by fasgnadh
We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.
What, Howard has burned down a Mosk, may be? What are you saying? Are
you afraid for Muslims because you think they are mentally retarded?
Post by fasgnadh
Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.
That was not right. However, on the other side of the story, if there
are constantly economic refugees who pay for coming here illegally
(illegal immigrants) these things happen. Yes, I agree with the
philosophy that immigration must be in Australia's exclusive interest
and if there are dishonest people the honest one suffer too. The honest
ones can dob in the dishonest one on arrival which might change the
situation.
Post by fasgnadh
Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.
I totally agree with you here apart from the difference that we are
threatened that much provided the authorities try vigorously to prevent
terrorism and do not allow anyone from countries that either accept or
even support terrorism into the country, even not as tourists.
Post by fasgnadh
This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.
Sad that youi put things together that don't belong together. I agree
with the first part of your statement in full. I have no evidence as to
Howard supporting some self appointed so called Christian extremists
(possibly in the USA?) other than the websites you and kangaroolistan
want people to refer to. I had a look and found all of it propaganda
called "facts" by people like you who feel that everyone other than you
uis an absolute moron.
Post by fasgnadh
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Haven' heard about that. In any case, that's in the USA and I could not
give a shit about the USA and what goes on there.
Post by fasgnadh
------------
Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"
"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."
"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."
"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.
- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006
Every election Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.
That, in fact, IO agree to. Not only that, Howard lies until he is blue
in the face. Mind you, I don't think Labor is better. As to
immigration, Liberal is importing cheap labour, Labor is importing
potential Labor voters.

In any case, we don't have a Liberal Party any more. The fellows who
call themselves "Liberal" are actually British type Conservatives
(Margaret Thatcher is Howard's idol).
Post by fasgnadh
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath
Correct, OURS means Australians and not foreigners or aliens.
fasgnadh
2007-01-20 07:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Oldfart wrote:

What are you doing asking me questions again ?
You claimed to killfile me after you couldn't defend
the claims tripper made regarding his tradition of
female genital mutilation, and you were humiliated because you couldn't
name a SINGLE monocultural nation, and had to ask others for help:

# fasgnadh wrote:
# > Oldfart wrote:
# >> David Moss wrote:
# >>
# >>> Multiculturalism means that you can do your thing, I can do mine,
but if
# >>> we like something the other is doing, we can do that too. There is no
# >>> such thing as turf in a truly multicultural society. What you are
# >>> describing is a collection of monocultures living side by side.
# >>
# >> Hey, you are describing something even I find good! Now please tell me,
# >> where does that exist!
# >
# > Poor old fart, caught publicly begging someone else to help him find
# > a single example of a monocultural nation. 8..(
# >
# > How embarrassing for him, because if there are none, and multicultural
# > societies are the global norm, then his pathetic whining is futile,
# > successful monocultures don't exist in the REAL WORLD! B^)
# >
# >> It seems to be like communism.
# >
# > No wonder that appeals to you, Jackbooted KGB, locking
# > up opponents, dull monotonous conformity.. B^p

No wonder you know so much about gulags if you say that
something that seems like communism is 'something even I find good'

Are you just another old Stalinist?
Post by Oldfart
Bit of agreement here... I should answer that.
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
CORRECT!
Of course, I wrote it.. from here on it's problematic,
because you wrote it;
Post by Oldfart
Thde same for all including fundamentalist Muslims.
What the fuck do you think *EVERYONE* means?
Post by Oldfart
Is it the case?
Yes it's true, but you are the case.
Post by Oldfart
No.
Yes, you are just waiting for some nuts to be inserted.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Yes, but what is vilification or hate speech?
It's defined in the act;

2001http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/
Post by Oldfart
According to YOU
You are incapable or expressing YOUR OWN thoughts, coherently and
rationality, how could such a limited intellect reliably paraphrase
the thoughts of others.
Post by Oldfart
vilification and hate is already expressed if one does not share YOUR
opinion.
The act is not 'My opinion', you are either a fool or a liar.

*Your* definition is completely unrelated to that in the act,
in fact it's completely unrelated to reality. B^D
Post by Oldfart
That is not a limit, that is the prohibition of free speech.
Yes, we are shocked that YOU advocate it, especially as
your opinions are so absurd it would be insane to ask others to
conform to them
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
Where is or was the USSA? What are gulags?
The fact that I can say it, and you can ask shows that free speech
functions, effectively, in the main.

Clearly I am not stopping ANYONE from having a view just by
having my own. Are you related to Nev Duguid, he used to
make absurd claims his 'freedom of speech' was 'removed' when
people criticised him in Usenet.. B^D

Like you he confused his humiliation and shame, which made him
want hide in a hole, with being censored.. which he in fact attempted
on others.
Post by Oldfart
Listen, pal, you call me uneducated. You mean USSR (Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics), in the cyrillic alphabet is was CCCP (Союз
Советских Социалистических
Республик). I thought you have a good education?
But I was not talking about the USSR! B^D
Post by Oldfart
What University did you go to?
For my degree or post graduate qualifications?
Post by Oldfart
A gulac sounds like some disagreeable food.
It sounds like you are choking on one.

A gulag is a political prison where people are held without
trial or charges and tortured.

Read Solzhenitsyn and then look at Guantanamo Bay.

Have you got ANY intelligent response to make, I'm finding
that exposing your idiocy, while easy, is tiresome?
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Not yet and it will stay that way
...as long as people like me draw the issue to the attention of fellow
Aussies, including you.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
In other words,
That is a sure sign that a cretin is about to completely distort the
meaning of the previous statement and present HIS OWN way of thinking
Post by Oldfart
make surfe certain issues on everyone's mind are not
talked about becasue there could be someone who doesn't like it or is
afraid the truth might come out.
Thanks for demonstrating your own, Stalinist, interest in conformity
Post by Oldfart
Political coirrectness says that one should not say anything that might
hurt someone else.
You are a brain dead fuckwit.

Guess that, unlike you, I don't subscribe to such crapulous PC! B^D
Post by Oldfart
Where does that leave us?
You advocating PC codswallop, and me advocating red-blooded free speech
WITHIN the law.. and then introducing the additional, rational and
sensible, refinement, that people in leadership roles have extra
requirements to SPEAK WISELY.

e.g. A parent has a position of responsibility and leadership,
while their free speech within the law rights allows them to say
'Fuck off you annoying little prick, your grandpa Oldfart has
shit his nappy again and I have to clean the old turd up' to a child,
it would be ill-advised. Such language is hurtful, and may make the
child feel that the parent is angry at them, when you are the cause of
the frustration.

There are many cases where adults moderate their speech, including,
courtesy, wisdom, manners, politeness, kindness, sensitivity... but no
one expects you to know about that.
Post by Oldfart
Let's face it, just having another view hurts many
But I am entitled to call you a braindead fuckwit WITHIN the
law, because Truth is a defence. B^)

If I behaved like you and claimed all people from your ethnic
group, or religion, or skin colour, were braindead fuckwits
then that would be a stereotype, and UN-true.
Post by Oldfart
Let's afce it, you stared to abuse me and call me names,
No, I said multicultural freedom existed withing the Law,
Tripper claimed "Only if that law allows female genital
mutilation and honour killing."
Naturally I rejected his appalling stance that he would only
accept the law if it allowed his disgusting traditional mutilations.

You attacked me, and all Aussies, defending genital mutilation
with your lies and misrepresentations. Here's the evidence;


# Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:51:30 +1100
# From: fasgnadh <***@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.religion,aus.culture.true-blue
# Subject: Re: Oldfart and BJ join tripper in pushing for
# genital mutilation to be made legal
# Multiculturism is inclusive.
# Message-ID: <45ab3282$0$23346$***@news.optusnet.com.au>
#
# B J Foster wrote:
# > Oldfart wrote:
# >
# >> Solme stuff snipped to arrest the size of the post.
# >>
# >> fasgnadh wrote:
# >>
# >>> tipper wrote:
# >>>
# >>>> "fasgnadh" <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
# >>>> news:45a9d3ae$0$23531$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
# >>>>
# >>>>> Oldfart wrote:
# >>>>>
# >>>>>> Multiculturalism basically means: "I do
# >>>>>> my thing and you do yours
# >>>>>
# >>>>> and so we all have freedom, within the law.

# >>>> Only if that law allows female genital mutilation and
# >>>> honour killing.
# >>>
# >>> Sorry, you are in the wrong country then, you better
# >>> go back to Redneck Dogfuck, where you can practice
# >>> your traditional culture.
# >>
# >> BINGO, here we are.
# >> Fasgnadh hates and wants to destroy the traditional
# >> culture and he hates everyone with this culture.
#
# Because I won't let you genitally mutilate girls
# just because tripper says it's your 'tradition'? pffft


Of course I used strong language condemning your 'traditional
culture' - the MUTILATION OF LITTLE GIRLS, unlike your
Politically Correct namby pamby APOLOGY FOR IT, where you
SUPPORTED Tripper and ATTACKED me, for defending the children
from such perversions!

It's CLEAR where you and tripper stand.


Hand's up those who want the freedom, within the law
which we have in Australia?

Hand's up those who, like Tripper and Oldfart, only
want it if they can practice their traditional culture
of female genital mutilation and honour killing;
Post by Oldfart
a proof beyond reasonable doubt that you do not tolerate
any views other than yours.
I am the father of two daughters, views like yours on genital
mutilation are not only morally repulsive but AGAINST THE LAW.

You may think my verbal condemnation is harsh, but I would happily
see you both flogged for such insane violence to children!
Post by Oldfart
Come on, admit it....
I not only admit standing up to you thugs, I'm PROUD of it.

We see you, a self confessed defender of child abuse, claiming
I am Politically Incorrect for daring to call you out! pffffft

Call someone who gives a fuck for your opinion!
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
Toni Blair blessed Ian Paisley?
Can you read the word "IF', you child abusing filth?
Post by Oldfart
" Jee, I didn't know Toni was a Prioest?
What you don't know could fill a medium sized universe.

Parents give their blessing on a child's marriage.

The Queen and politicians wives Bless Ships and all who
sail in them at their launch.

Clearly, you do not have to be a priest to give your
blessing to something, you mindless troll


People bless others just for SNEEZING: "Bless You"


Just because you were raised in a tradition of female Genital
Mutilation and Honour killings does not mean everyone missed
out on genteel manners.

You are just another practitioner of Post-SPAM (*TM) breaking up
a logical argument which you can't refute with pointless gibberish.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
OK, all that is not a proof
Of course it's not 'proof' you moron, it's an analogy,
whose meaning you won't grasp because your brain noise
is generating Post-SPAM (*TM)
Post by Oldfart
apart from the fact that I agree with you
on one specific item. Paisley and the IRA belong to those groups who
intentionally ytwist religion in order toi excuse the unexcusable.
Don't call Paisley and the IRA Christians,
I didn't, you are just blowing more Chaff.
Post by Oldfart
However, you complain when someone calls Muslims bad because a small
group of people who happen to be Muslims has done the wrong thing.
Of course. But I haven't called Christians 'bad' here, have I, fuckwit!
Post by Oldfart
However, at the same time you here accuse the Irish Catholics.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Of what? I haven't 'ACCUSED' them of ANYTHING, you braindead cretin,
I have said they would UNDERSTAND what you have failed to grasp!

*What it means when a political leader gives a public blessing to
an extremist. *

Just like everyone, with the likely exception, you, would
understand what it signified if Bush gave a public endorsement
the the Grand Dragon of the KKK, .. and it would certainly
be understood by Black Americans.
Post by Oldfart
Nearly everyone in Ireland is catholic; are you trying to
say that all Irish catholics are IRA murderers?
No, you appear to be the only one saying that.
Why does your thinking operate that way?
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims.
I agree gthat is not correct.
His former Boss, Malcolm Fraser has revealed Howard plans to
use it as an electoral weapon, making political gains out of
fear, hysteria and dividing the Australian people against each other.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
An evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.
I agree with that too. However, if anyone of a group protects those who
committed crimes and fails to immediately do everythiong in their power
than they are guilty as guilty as the criminal, it's called assessory
after the fact.
Tripper said he would only accept freedom WITHIN the LAW "Only if that
law allows female genital mutilation and honour killing."

I attacked his vile ideas, you defended him and claimed I was attacking
your 'traditional culture".

That makes you an accessory.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.
You must be joking,
No, unless you claim Howard COULD prosecute them and hasn't!

Do you want your nose rubbed in his cut-and-run where he said
it was up to the Muslim community to deal with El Hilaly?

Why, if neo-nazi racist Anglo thugs riot at Cronulla, as they did,
bashing Sikhs wearing turbans and Italians because they had dark skin,
is it the job of Anglo or Christian leaders to enforce the law
(more Vigilantism) or is it the AUTHORITIES JOB?

If Howard thinks laws have been broken, WHY DOESN'T HE TAKE ACTION!?
Post by Oldfart
most Muslims so far got away with murdcer!
'Most Muslims'? - scratch a bigot and the stereotypes leech out.

Most Muslims do not commit murder, tell us the names of of any Muslims
in Australia who have killed people and got away with it.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down... Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o
What Pastors are that?
Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot, fundie Xtian mates of Howard and Costello.

http://tinyurl.com/33e8nt
Post by Oldfart
They are not Christians but call themselves Christians
They are Howard and Costello's kind of Christians,
which is what this thread is about, fool.

I agree they are more like Pharisees, not just rendering
that which is Caesars, but sucking up to him, and do not
follow Christ, but they are the ones Howard prefers, because
the REAL church, DARES TO CRITICISE the powers and principalities.

The traditional denominations, whose numbers are shrinking
have largely learnt from a range of historical mistakes.

With the end of the Holy Roman Empire we saw dangerous Theocracy
replaced by sensible separation of Church and State.
The religious right are blurring this important distinction.
When Howard appointed Hollingsworthless to be GG he mad a tragic
mistake, damaging the office by making the former head of the Howard's
Anglican Church our Queen's rep as head of State.
When child sexual abuse, and Hollingworthless's hopeless 'blame the
child victim' response engulfed the Anglicans, it besmirched the
GG office, and Howard who defended the defender of paedophiles! oh!

Like your cultural practices, child sexual abuse is against the law,
and we expect leaders to STAMP IT OUT, not PANDER To IT!

So who are the Real Christians? Well God decides that, but to me
it's the Doers, Salvos, Brotherhood of St L, St Vinnies, Anglicare,
the ones who give a voice to the voiceless, like Les Twentyman,
and those most brave souls, risking crucifixion, THOSE WHO
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.

They are the ones among the traditional and new Christian denominations
that Howard hates the most.. because they criticise Government Policy..
and he has consistently ordered them to BUTT OUT of social justice
issues, claiming they should stick to 'religion'.. HIS view of it.

This is particularly dangerous for Aussie democracy because if the
agencies who deal with the poor, underprivileged and oppressed are
now getting funded by government, and become afraid to speak up
about abuses, inefficiencies, injustices.. WHO WILL?

Howard has already destroyed Trade Unions, Academics, Student Unions,
the ABC, any Indigenous groups who could speak for them, putting NOTHING
in ATSIC's place, and has the tory media in his pocket.

So Howard hates Christians who follow Christ, those gutsy enough to,
tip over the money-lenders tables in the temple, to risk crucifixion
by SPEAKING TRUTH to POWER, ..he likes the 'personal-God' religion
rather than the 'social justice' religion.. individual transformation
rather than a Fair Go for All', he is comfortable with church-on
Sunday, Sing and Dance, aren't we Holy kind of Churches who put on
a spectacle, only attack easy targets, like Muslims, and remain silent
about Howard's war.

The sort of people Christ found running God's religion when he arrived.
Post by Oldfart
possibly to give them power, money or influence. Note that
main stream, Churches actually promote equality amongst all.
Really? The largest Christian denomination in Australia and the
World will not allow half the population WOMEN, to fulfill the primary
administrative and sacramental role.. the priestly function.

Same with Howard's Anglicans.

That's part of the reason for their decline.

Few Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, traditions have a good
record with such a fundamental issue.

Women in the Kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, with no access to RU486
if Tony Abbot gets his way, is Mullah Howard's vision of women;

"Have a baby for mum, one for Dad, and One for the Government"
- Satan Costello's Family Fist values.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.
You are not talking about a real Church, you are talking about some
cult.
The fastest growing Christian Church's in Australia, Catch on Fire,
Assembly of Gog, and their political wing (a la Pat Robertson,
George Bush and the religious right), endorsed by John Howard
and Peter Costello.

Why? The Charismatic churches are concentrated in the outer
suburbs, their 'prosperity theology' matches with Howard's
target demographic, the 'aspirationals'. Materialism is a key
link, "if you are rich it's because you have pleased God and He has
Blessed you", "Give to God (here's OUR Acct Number) and he will reward
your Love tenfold"...

I do NOT claim all Charismatic churches are scams, some are well
meaning, but with such a one-dimensional, UN-CRITICAL theology,
and a preference for 'Charismatic' leaders, they are dangerous
environments for the gullible, which pastors like Nahlia and Scot
can use to preach their vilification of Muslims.

JUST EXACTLY like El Hilaly draws his support from a small community
of ill-educated (hence untypical) fundie Muslims, and Sheik Feiz
attracts young, immature Muslim boys, (his job made EASIER if the
Aussie community makes them feel unwanted and alienated, "Don't come to
OUR beach")

Spiritual parasites are worse than politicians because they Prey
on the vulnerable.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite.
Anyone who tries to prohibit Aussies to have a beer and a bang, foprces
onto them a lifestyle, smells and looks they don't want of change their
home into Manila, Beijing or Mumbai, I hope.
So why is Howard endorsing them?
Post by Oldfart
Many migrants from all parts of the world immigrated into Australia
because they were fed up with the corrupt and unfriendly lifestyle and
culture in their old country. Those poor people are now cheated and
defrauded because their old country looks, values, lifestyle and
corruption follows them now into Australia
I agree, the English brought their floggings, their racism, their Queen,
a flood of pests from rabbits and cane toads to European Carp and
blowflies, they planted lawn in a land of droughts, tilled the shallow
soil like it was deep European loam and watched it blow away,
planted cotton and rice till the rivers were bled dry, polluted the
rivers till there no decent fish left, and made hundreds of species
extinct. Whatta ya gonna do! ?
Post by Oldfart
like a stinking and fatty fart.
Don't eat Fish'n'Chips and vegies boiled to death like back in the old
Dart, go multicultural and eat our abundant fruit, fresh, healthy and
cheap vegies , cooked lightly and deliciously, Chinese or Vietnamese style..

That might help your flatulence, and your whining, Alf.
Post by Oldfart
Immigrant countries are pl;aces for those who want to get out of their
old country and tell their old society to shove things up their arse
and not for people who just would like a red sportscar too.
Don't extrapolate from your own unhappy experience, many Greeks,
for example, don't share your hate of your homeland, they love to
make a few bob and go back to sip whine under the shade, or have
a holiday above the azure blue Mediterranean
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.
What are you saying? Are you afraid for Muslims
I'm afraid for any society that allows politicians to manipulate
fear and hysteria into hate for scapegoats
Post by Oldfart
because you think they are mentally retarded?
No, because I think you are.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.
That was not right.
Careful now, that almost sounded like you stood up and opposed
something.

Are you in danger of growing a backbone?

No, not really it seems
Post by Oldfart
However, on the other side of the story, if there
are constantly economic refugees
Like the English Settlers?
Post by Oldfart
who pay for coming here
The ten pound poms
Post by Oldfart
illegally (illegal immigrants)
Our Convict ancestors! YOU HERETIC, why are you slagging
our history and traditions, and trying to change them
so people can no longer come here for the reasons your ancestors
did!? Hypocrisy and Racism?
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.
I totally agree with you here apart from the difference that we are
threatened that much provided the authorities try vigorously to prevent
terrorism and do not allow anyone from countries that either accept or
even support terrorism into the country, even not as tourists.
Howard has already let terrorists into the country, then out,
where the French promptly nabbed them! Willy Brigitte, 8^o
So much for Howard and Border Protection!

He let in over 30,000 visa illegals! they are still here.
Flew in dressed in neat casuals, just like Mohammad Atta
arrived in the USSA for the most devastating attack the world has seen.

What you don't seem to realize is that the War in Iraq has CREATED
more terror, turned it into a breeding ground for Al Qaida where
there were NONE, and MADE US ALL LESS SAFE as a result.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.
I agree with the first part of your statement in full.
That will do for a start, listing more things you don't know is just a
waste of our time <snip>
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Haven' heard about that. In any case, that's in the USA and I could not
give a shit about the USA and what goes on there.
B^D
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
------------
Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"
"there's a concerted approach by the Government
designed to set Muslims aside, designed to say to
other Australians that Muslims are different from
the rest of us."
"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."
"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.
- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006
Every election Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.
That, in fact, IO agree to. Not only that, Howard lies until he is blue
in the face. Mind you, I don't think Labor is better. As to
immigration, Liberal is importing cheap labour, Labor is importing
potential Labor voters.
In any case, we don't have a Liberal Party any more. The fellows who
call themselves "Liberal" are actually British type Conservatives
(Margaret Thatcher is Howard's idol).
Post by fasgnadh
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath
Correct, OURS means Australians and not foreigners or aliens.
--
---------

Nuclear NIMBYs split the Howard Government;


"Treasurer Peter Costello has said nuclear power is not viable.
It would cost 20-50 per cent more than coal-based power."
- Peter'Chernobyl'Costello, Federal Treasurer

"Finance Minister Nick Minchin said it would be crazy to
throwaway the natural advantage Australia possessed with coal."
- Nick'No-Nukes'Minchin, Federal Finance Minister

Mark'Nuclear Nimby' Vaile, has already refused to accept
any discussion of a nuclear power plant, or waste dump,
in his electorate, even though it is an an obvious
candidate for one of the score or more nukes that will
be dotted round the coast.

---------


The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------
Oldfart
2007-01-22 22:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Again, lots of agreement. Fasgnadh, sad you you are so abusive. We
actually have some common ground.and, may be, we actually want the same
but our experiences are that different that we automatically see each
other as enemies. May be for you I am the one who called you and anyone
like you a "bloody wog" and may be you represent for me the new
immigrant you makes a carbon copy of his old country here, speaks his
own language hence exclude me in my own country, calls me a foreigner
in my own country (like the Chinese in their own language) and
basically tell me my country has changed and if I don't like it I can
fuck off - in other words, you have taken over an my time is over.

May be it's worthwhile to start there. May be that is actually the base
pount of all the hostilities?

Regards
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
We have laws. They should apply to EVERYONE regardless
of their religion, political views, gender, age or ethnic background.
CORRECT!
Of course, I wrote it.. from here on it's problematic,
because you wrote it;
I am so sorry, I just forgot the basic ands all overruling fundmental
law:"

Whatever fasgnadh writes or says is correct and fact and whatever
anyone else says is crap unless it is a copy of whatever fasgnadh says
or believes in. Sorry.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Thde same for all including fundamentalist Muslims.
What the fuck do you think *EVERYONE* means?
...and you accuse me of not understanding English.... If you would you
would not write this stupid remark and I am not going to explain it to
you, find out for yourself.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Is it the case?
Yes it's true, but you are the case.
Yep, abuse instead of argument, exactly what one can expect.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
No.
Yes, you are just waiting for some nuts to be inserted.
Yep, abuse instead of argument, exactly what one can expect.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
While all citizens in this country have freedom of speech,
by convention, not as a right, we place limits on libel,
slander, vilification and hate speech. You can be
arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Yes, but what is vilification or hate speech?
It's defined in the act;
2001http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/
Post by Oldfart
According to YOU
You are incapable or expressing YOUR OWN thoughts, coherently and
rationality, how could such a limited intellect reliably paraphrase
the thoughts of others.
Yep, abuse instead of argument, exactly what one can expect.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
vilification and hate is already expressed if one does not share YOUR
opinion.
The act is not 'My opinion', you are either a fool or a liar.
Yep, abuse instead of argument, exactly what one can expect.
Post by fasgnadh
*Your* definition is completely unrelated to that in the act,
in fact it's completely unrelated to reality. B^D
Yep, fasgnadh the legal eagle and law expert.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
That is not a limit, that is the prohibition of free speech.
Yes, we are shocked that YOU advocate it, especially as
your opinions are so absurd it would be insane to ask others to
conform to them
So I am NOT permitted to voice my opinion? Any opinion but thew one YOU
represent is Hate Speed and Vilification?

Hmmm, and he calls me a Stalinist.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Unlike the USSA we do not put people in gulags without trial,
Where is or was the USSA? What are gulags?
The fact that I can say it, and you can ask shows that free speech
functions, effectively, in the main.
As far as I am concverned you can say whatever you want. In this case I
just had a pub because I thought you know what USSR and Ghoulacs are.
Post by fasgnadh
Clearly I am not stopping ANYONE from having a view just by
having my own. Are you related to Nev Duguid, he used to
make absurd claims his 'freedom of speech' was 'removed' when
people criticised him in Usenet.. B^D
Apart from the fact that I don't know any "Nev Duguit" or whatever it
appears to me that you would love to intimidate me into shutting up. I
genuinely feel that you as well as some others in your camp would love
to prevent people with my view to be read or heard any longer not be
seing people not listening to them but by forcing them not to voice
their view.

If I am wrong I am happy to accept it if you tell me I have judged you
wrong.
Post by fasgnadh
Like you he confused his humiliation and shame, which made him
want hide in a hole, with being censored.. which he in fact attempted
on others.
Post by Oldfart
Listen, pal, you call me uneducated. You mean USSR (Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics), in the cyrillic alphabet is was CCCP (Союз
Советских Социалистических
Республик). I thought you have a good education?
But I was not talking about the USSR! B^D
Ok. What was it ehn, I am not an aus.politics speciaqlist. I spend
little time on this group becasue I work for a living.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
What University did you go to?
For my degree or post graduate qualifications?
Post by Oldfart
A gulac sounds like some disagreeable food.
It sounds like you are choking on one.
A gulag is a political prison where people are held without
trial or charges and tortured.
I know that you know, I just had a pun becasue of the way you wrote it.
Sorry.
Post by fasgnadh
Read Solzhenitsyn and then look at Guantanamo Bay.
I haven't seen either.
Post by fasgnadh
Have you got ANY intelligent response to make, I'm finding
that exposing your idiocy, while easy, is tiresome?
Thanks. Not being of youyr view must be tiredsome.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
And we do not try people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture.
Not yet and it will stay that way
...as long as people like me draw the issue to the attention of fellow
Aussies, including you.
I don't know what you mean by that but I am prepared to lose my life to
make sure trying people based on hearsay, secret testimony, or evidence
gained under torture will not happen in Australia. If this will happen
this would legitimize for m,e a civil uprising.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
gained under torure
Some people, in positions of leadership, have additional
responsibilities. They are expected to promote and maintain
national unity by nor discriminating or speaking from prejudice,
or supporting those who hold extremist and violent views.
In other words,
That is a sure sign that a cretin is about to completely distort the
meaning of the previous statement and present HIS OWN way of thinking
Post by Oldfart
make surfe certain issues on everyone's mind are not
talked about becasue there could be someone who doesn't like it or is
afraid the truth might come out.
Thanks for demonstrating your own, Stalinist, interest in conformity
Thanks for admitting that you stand for severe restriction of free
speech. No spoeech against certain fundamental principles you feel are
correct and must be maintained. No other view is allowed.

AND YOU call me a Stalinist? If I were a Stalinist I would try to stop
you from speaking! However, I don't. In fact, I find it good that you,
even whilst you are frequently offensive, can speak so freely.

I might hate what you say and you might even hurt me what you are
saying but I will defend with my life your right to say it.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Political coirrectness says that one should not say anything that might
hurt someone else.
You are a brain dead fuckwit.
Hmmm, abuse again? No argument again?
Post by fasgnadh
Guess that, unlike you, I don't subscribe to such crapulous PC! B^D
How do you work that out, me, people on your side hate as the
politically most incorrect bastard who has ever walked on the surface
of the Earthy....?
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Where does that leave us?
You advocating PC codswallop, and me advocating red-blooded free speech
WITHIN the law.. and then introducing the additional, rational and
sensible, refinement, that people in leadership roles have extra
requirements to SPEAK WISELY.
... and don't make certain decisions or surpress certain views?
Post by fasgnadh
e.g. A parent has a position of responsibility and leadership,
while their free speech within the law rights allows them to say
'Fuck off you annoying little prick, your grandpa Oldfart has
shit his nappy again and I have to clean the old turd up' to a child,
it would be ill-advised. Such language is hurtful, and may make the
child feel that the parent is angry at them, when you are the cause of
the frustration.
Funny, parents never said things like that before political correctness
and free speech issues. They did not say that in Australia, in the USA,
in the UK, in Germany, in Switzerland and definitely not in the USSR. I
wonder where you come from. Is it in your heritage custom to hate you
parents? Otherwise you woun't even get ideas like that.
Post by fasgnadh
There are many cases where adults moderate their speech, including,
courtesy, wisdom, manners, politeness, kindness, sensitivity... but no
one expects you to know about that.
Correct up to the point when the gloves are off since one has been
either abused, something has been taken away (not only material things
but rights but including privileges).
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Let's face it, just having another view hurts many
But I am entitled to call you a braindead fuckwit WITHIN the
law, because Truth is a defence. B^)
Ok, prove in law that I am a fuckwit. This will, obviously, include
thaqt a fuckwit is not just an abuse but something that exists. I shall
hand the explanation to a QC in Adelaide and ask for his view on the
defence.
Post by fasgnadh
If I behaved like you and claimed all people from your ethnic
group, or religion, or skin colour, were braindead fuckwits
then that would be a stereotype, and UN-true.
You bloody idiot, I have never said or claimed that people of any
specific race are braindead or fuckwits. I have claimed that those in
your political camp have a problem with reality and appear to be
absolute stand-over artists and try to be bullies.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Let's afce it, you stared to abuse me and call me names,
Can you ewver speak the truth?
Post by fasgnadh
No, I said multicultural freedom existed withing the Law,
Tripper claimed "Only if that law allows female genital
mutilation and honour killing."
Naturally I rejected his appalling stance that he would only
accept the law if it allowed his disgusting traditional mutilations.
I agree with you. What I, however, said (and again you might have
comprehension problem here, may be you don't understand sarcasm..?)

What I said is simply that, ikf you accept multiculturalism you must
accept all p;arts olf another culture and not just those ones you (or
we) approve of. Otherwise it is NOT multiculturism but partial
assimilation. This is my argument against multiculturism.

Either multiculturalism or assimilation, there is NOTHING in between =
black and white with no shades of grey.
Post by fasgnadh
You attacked me, and all Aussies, defending genital mutilation
with your lies and misrepresentations. Here's the evidence;
# Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:51:30 +1100
# Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.religion,aus.culture.true-blue
# Subject: Re: Oldfart and BJ join tripper in pushing for
# genital mutilation to be made legal
# Multiculturism is inclusive.
#
# >
# >> Solme stuff snipped to arrest the size of the post.
# >>
# >>
# >>>
# >>>>
# >>>>>
# >>>>>> Multiculturalism basically means: "I do
# >>>>>> my thing and you do yours
# >>>>>
# >>>>> and so we all have freedom, within the law.
# >>>> Only if that law allows female genital mutilation and
# >>>> honour killing.
# >>>
# >>> Sorry, you are in the wrong country then, you better
# >>> go back to Redneck Dogfuck, where you can practice
# >>> your traditional culture.
# >>
# >> BINGO, here we are.
# >> Fasgnadh hates and wants to destroy the traditional
# >> culture and he hates everyone with this culture.
#
# Because I won't let you genitally mutilate girls
# just because tripper says it's your 'tradition'? pffft
I didn't mean that, it's just YOUR interpretation.
Post by fasgnadh
Of course I used strong language condemning your 'traditional
culture' - the MUTILATION OF LITTLE GIRLS, unlike your
Politically Correct namby pamby APOLOGY FOR IT, where you
SUPPORTED Tripper and ATTACKED me, for defending the children
from such perversions!
It's CLEAR where you and tripper stand.
When did we mutilate little gorls? ...And don't come up with your
idiotic websites passed off as evidence.
Post by fasgnadh
Hand's up those who want the freedom, within the law
which we have in Australia?
Hand's up those who, like Tripper and Oldfart, only
want it if they can practice their traditional culture
of female genital mutilation and honour killing;
See, again, you are offensive claiming that all those of contemporary
Australian culture are rapist, mutilateors etc. If youy don't
understand that this offends possibly more than half of the Australian
population then you would be extremely stupoid which I do not believe.

If you are a well educated thinker I can only deduce from your
statement that you hate everything and everyone that stems from
European culture and contemporary Australian culture. At least that is
the impression your above statement gives.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
a proof beyond reasonable doubt that you do not tolerate
any views other than yours.
I am the father of two daughters, views like yours on genital
mutilation are not only morally repulsive but AGAINST THE LAW.
Not only that you abuse me but you attempt to character assassinate me
in the hope I shut up, and YOU dare to call me a Stalinist. You are 10
times worse and YOU speak of defending democracy?
Post by fasgnadh
You may think my verbal condemnation is harsh, but I would happily
see you both flogged for such insane violence to children!
Yes, finally found something to dish out capital punishment without a
trial. Great.

Fasgnadh is worse than Stalin, he is Idi Amin II
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Come on, admit it....
I not only admit standing up to you thugs, I'm PROUD of it.
We see you, a self confessed defender of child abuse, claiming
I am Politically Incorrect for daring to call you out! pffffft
Call someone who gives a fuck for your opinion!
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
If a British PM sent a blessing to the Reverend Ian Paisley,
Toni Blair blessed Ian Paisley?
Can you read the word "IF', you child abusing filth?
You child abusing filth? Prove that I have abused children! You have
now accused me personally of having abused Children.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
" Jee, I didn't know Toni was a Prioest?
What you don't know could fill a medium sized universe.
Abuse instead of argument, typical.
Post by fasgnadh
Parents give their blessing on a child's marriage.
The Queen and politicians wives Bless Ships and all who
sail in them at their launch.
Clearly, you do not have to be a priest to give your
blessing to something, you mindless troll
Abuse instead of argument, typical.
Post by fasgnadh
People bless others just for SNEEZING: "Bless You"
He doesn't even understand the finer points of the language. Prove is
above.
Post by fasgnadh
Just because you were raised in a tradition of female Genital
Mutilation and Honour killings does not mean everyone missed
out on genteel manners.
You are just another practitioner of Post-SPAM (*TM) breaking up
a logical argument which you can't refute with pointless gibberish.
Mindless abuse even off the topic abuse instead of argument, typical.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
or George Bush sent a special warm greeting to the Grand Dragon
of the KKK, it would not matter what is IN the message, it could
be all Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the message would be clearly
understood, especially by Irish Catholics and Black Americans,
as political support for those who hate with a vengeance.
OK, all that is not a proof
Of course it's not 'proof' you moron, it's an analogy,
whose meaning you won't grasp because your brain noise
is generating Post-SPAM (*TM)
So I have to prove but you don't?
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
apart from the fact that I agree with you
on one specific item. Paisley and the IRA belong to those groups who
intentionally ytwist religion in order toi excuse the unexcusable.
Don't call Paisley and the IRA Christians,
I didn't, you are just blowing more Chaff.
Post by Oldfart
However, you complain when someone calls Muslims bad because a small
group of people who happen to be Muslims has done the wrong thing.
Of course. But I haven't called Christians 'bad' here, have I, fuckwit!
Yes you do.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
However, at the same time you here accuse the Irish Catholics.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!
Of what? I haven't 'ACCUSED' them of ANYTHING, you braindead cretin,
I have said they would UNDERSTAND what you have failed to grasp!
Abuse instead of argument, typical.
Post by fasgnadh
*What it means when a political leader gives a public blessing to
an extremist. *
Just like everyone, with the likely exception, you, would
understand what it signified if Bush gave a public endorsement
the the Grand Dragon of the KKK, .. and it would certainly
be understood by Black Americans.
Post by Oldfart
Nearly everyone in Ireland is catholic; are you trying to
say that all Irish catholics are IRA murderers?
No, you appear to be the only one saying that.
Why does your thinking operate that way?
I didn't say anything like that, I am asking you. Get some
comprehension lessons.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
PM Howard and Opposition leader Rudd are both Christian's
but while BOTH have condemned the rabid hate speech of Sheik
Feiz Mohammed, Howard has gone further, putting the responsibility
for that individuals speech, and Hilaly, onto ALL Muslims.
I agree gthat is not correct.
His former Boss, Malcolm Fraser has revealed Howard plans to
use it as an electoral weapon, making political gains out of
fear, hysteria and dividing the Australian people against each other.
I agree, and I agree too that Johnny actually does it. I ahte that too.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
An evil doctrine of Collective Responsibility, where ALL members
of a group are stereotyped and held accountable for the actions of
any criminal individuals alleged to be in their group.
I agree with that too. However, if anyone of a group protects those who
committed crimes and fails to immediately do everythiong in their power
than they are guilty as guilty as the criminal, it's called assessory
after the fact.
Tripper said he would only accept freedom WITHIN the LAW "Only if that
law allows female genital mutilation and honour killing."
I haven't read that. Ac I said, I haven't read everything; I don't have
the time, I need to work for a living. I am not on the dole.
Post by fasgnadh
I attacked his vile ideas, you defended him and claimed I was attacking
your 'traditional culture".
That's ok. Nothing wrong with that.
Post by fasgnadh
That makes you an accessory.
Accessory to what? Explain yourself.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
And yet Howard refuses to take any action himself, apparently
admitting that while he has the power and influence which
ordinary Muslims lack, he doesn't believe any LAWS have been broken
which he can prosecute.
You must be joking,
No, unless you claim Howard COULD prosecute them and hasn't!
In caswe of Helali, yes.
Post by fasgnadh
Do you want your nose rubbed in his cut-and-run where he said
it was up to the Muslim community to deal with El Hilaly?
I am not a dog that shit on the carpet, you inulent little twirp!
Post by fasgnadh
Why, if neo-nazi racist Anglo thugs riot at Cronulla, as they did,
bashing Sikhs wearing turbans and Italians because they had dark skin,
is it the job of Anglo or Christian leaders to enforce the law
(more Vigilantism) or is it the AUTHORITIES JOB?
That was wrong and I said so.
Post by fasgnadh
If Howard thinks laws have been broken, WHY DOESN'T HE TAKE ACTION!?
Because he is afraid to lose votesand becasue he is afraid of potential
civil unrest.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
most Muslims so far got away with murdcer!
'Most Muslims'? - scratch a bigot and the stereotypes leech out.
Sorry, most fundamentalist Muslims.
Post by fasgnadh
Most Muslims do not commit murder, tell us the names of of any Muslims
in Australia who have killed people and got away with it.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Yet, when two Christian pastors vilify Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, even
Aussies who drink, gamble or go to brothels, calling them 'Satanic'
and preaching they be torn down... Howard does no even question the
extremists responsible for the hate speech.. he certainly does not
call on All Christians to condemn them, and deal with them,
he gives them his blessing! 8^o
What Pastors are that?
Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot, fundie Xtian mates of Howard and Costello.
Never heard about them,. Must really have a big voice or following.
Post by fasgnadh
http://tinyurl.com/33e8nt
One lunatic website nobody even knows except a few unemployed or
academics who have the time to search the net for bullshit whilst
others earn the moneyt to feed them.,
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
They are not Christians but call themselves Christians
They are Howard and Costello's kind of Christians,
which is what this thread is about, fool.
I agree they are more like Pharisees, not just rendering
that which is Caesars, but sucking up to him, and do not
follow Christ, but they are the ones Howard prefers, because
the REAL church, DARES TO CRITICISE the powers and principalities.
IO do not consider Howard and Castello as Christians. They go to Church
to appear to be Christians (in order to get votes), for the same reason
Saddam Hussain went to the Mosk.
Post by fasgnadh
The traditional denominations, whose numbers are shrinking
have largely learnt from a range of historical mistakes.
Funny, I understand that the number of Katechumans (converts in
formation) in the Roam Catholic Church as of an all time high for the
past three years???
Post by fasgnadh
With the end of the Holy Roman Empire we saw dangerous Theocracy
replaced by sensible separation of Church and State.
That is very true.
Post by fasgnadh
The religious right are blurring this important distinction.
When Howard appointed Hollingsworthless to be GG he mad a tragic
mistake, damaging the office by making the former head of the Howard's
Anglican Church our Queen's rep as head of State.
This is absolutely correct! I totally agree with you.
Post by fasgnadh
When child sexual abuse, and Hollingworthless's hopeless 'blame the
child victim' response engulfed the Anglicans, it besmirched the
GG office, and Howard who defended the defender of paedophiles! oh!
Child abuse is everywhere, not only in Churches. It is unfortunately
everywhere where some people with power over Children are found. It
even used to happen in schools and sports clubs.
Post by fasgnadh
Like your cultural practices, child sexual abuse is against the law,
and we expect leaders to STAMP IT OUT, not PANDER To IT!
I agree with you whole heartedly and I am glad that you feel that way.
Post by fasgnadh
So who are the Real Christians? Well God decides that, but to me
it's the Doers, Salvos, Brotherhood of St L, St Vinnies, Anglicare,
the ones who give a voice to the voiceless, like Les Twentyman,
and those most brave souls, risking crucifixion, THOSE WHO
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.
Again, I totally agree with you!
Post by fasgnadh
They are the ones among the traditional and new Christian denominations
that Howard hates the most.. because they criticise Government Policy..
and he has consistently ordered them to BUTT OUT of social justice
issues, claiming they should stick to 'religion'.. HIS view of it.
This is particularly dangerous for Aussie democracy because if the
agencies who deal with the poor, underprivileged and oppressed are
now getting funded by government, and become afraid to speak up
about abuses, inefficiencies, injustices.. WHO WILL?
Howard has already destroyed Trade Unions, Academics, Student Unions,
the ABC, any Indigenous groups who could speak for them, putting NOTHING
in ATSIC's place, and has the tory media in his pocket.
As you said, Howard is not Liberal but TORY (Conservative).
Post by fasgnadh
So Howard hates Christians who follow Christ, those gutsy enough to,
tip over the money-lenders tables in the temple, to risk crucifixion
by SPEAKING TRUTH to POWER, ..he likes the 'personal-God' religion
rather than the 'social justice' religion.. individual transformation
rather than a Fair Go for All', he is comfortable with church-on
Sunday, Sing and Dance, aren't we Holy kind of Churches who put on
a spectacle, only attack easy targets, like Muslims, and remain silent
about Howard's war.
The sort of people Christ found running God's religion when he arrived.
Unfortunately I cannot give you cause to abuse me on the past things, I
wholeheartedly agree with you.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
possibly to give them power, money or influence. Note that
main stream, Churches actually promote equality amongst all.
Really? The largest Christian denomination in Australia and the
World will not allow half the population WOMEN, to fulfill the primary
administrative and sacramental role.. the priestly function.
Priests are not the boss of a congregation., in most cases actually
women are. Priests are supposed to be a representation of Christ that
that fellow happened to have been male. Women are Extroordinary
Ministers. It has a lot to do wuth traditions and is not meant to be
discrimination.
Post by fasgnadh
Same with Howard's Anglicans.
That's part of the reason for their decline.
Few Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, traditions have a good
record with such a fundamental issue.
Too many claimiong to follow the religion just gain a comanding place
in society.
Post by fasgnadh
Women in the Kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, with no access to RU486
if Tony Abbot gets his way, is Mullah Howard's vision of women;
"Have a baby for mum, one for Dad, and One for the Government"
- Satan Costello's Family Fist values.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Even though they are actually charged under anti-vilification laws,
(far more serious than a populist media witch-hunt), with calling
for their followers to 'pull down Satan's Strongholds', including
'Hindu temples, TABs, Masonic buildings, Bars and Brothels, Bottle shops
and Mosques'.
You are not talking about a real Church, you are talking about some
cult.
The fastest growing Christian Church's in Australia, Catch on Fire,
Assembly of Gog, and their political wing (a la Pat Robertson,
George Bush and the religious right), endorsed by John Howard
and Peter Costello.
Why? The Charismatic churches are concentrated in the outer
suburbs, their 'prosperity theology' matches with Howard's
target demographic, the 'aspirationals'. Materialism is a key
link, "if you are rich it's because you have pleased God and He has
Blessed you", "Give to God (here's OUR Acct Number) and he will reward
your Love tenfold"...
Asd the Bible even says about how to detect false prophets:" You will
know them by their words AND their DEEDS."
Post by fasgnadh
I do NOT claim all Charismatic churches are scams, some are well
meaning, but with such a one-dimensional, UN-CRITICAL theology,
and a preference for 'Charismatic' leaders, they are dangerous
environments for the gullible, which pastors like Nahlia and Scot
can use to preach their vilification of Muslims.
JUST EXACTLY like El Hilaly draws his support from a small community
of ill-educated (hence untypical) fundie Muslims, and Sheik Feiz
attracts young, immature Muslim boys, (his job made EASIER if the
Aussie community makes them feel unwanted and alienated, "Don't come to
OUR beach")
Hey, what is happening? Do you really7 mean that? You know, I actually
agree with you in full.
Post by fasgnadh
Spiritual parasites are worse than politicians because they Prey
on the vulnerable.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Hindus, Masons, Muslims, Aussies who like a bet or a beer or a bang,
all need to ask why their values and beliefs can be attacked without
a peep from PM Hypocrite.
Anyone who tries to prohibit Aussies to have a beer and a bang, foprces
onto them a lifestyle, smells and looks they don't want of change their
home into Manila, Beijing or Mumbai, I hope.
So why is Howard endorsing them?
Search me. He changes his mind every 5 min anyway. Everything for a
vote.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Many migrants from all parts of the world immigrated into Australia
because they were fed up with the corrupt and unfriendly lifestyle and
culture in their old country. Those poor people are now cheated and
defrauded because their old country looks, values, lifestyle and
corruption follows them now into Australia
I agree, the English brought their floggings, their racism, their Queen,
a flood of pests from rabbits and cane toads to European Carp and
blowflies, they planted lawn in a land of droughts, tilled the shallow
soil like it was deep European loam and watched it blow away,
planted cotton and rice till the rivers were bled dry, polluted the
rivers till there no decent fish left, and made hundreds of species
extinct. Whatta ya gonna do! ?
Again, I agree.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
like a stinking and fatty fart.
Don't eat Fish'n'Chips and vegies boiled to death like back in the old
Dart, go multicultural and eat our abundant fruit, fresh, healthy and
cheap vegies , cooked lightly and deliciously, Chinese or Vietnamese style..
That might help your flatulence, and your whining, Alf.
Hahaha, I actually go to a "Muslim" Libanese fruit shop owner (who is a
very good bloke), have afew jockes and a few chuckles with him and he
supplies me with nice fresh food that goes in to the pot at home. No
fast food for me.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Immigrant countries are pl;aces for those who want to get out of their
old country and tell their old society to shove things up their arse
and not for people who just would like a red sportscar too.
Don't extrapolate from your own unhappy experience, many Greeks,
for example, don't share your hate of your homeland, they love to
make a few bob and go back to sip whine under the shade, or have
a holiday above the azure blue Mediterranean
Greece and Italy were different. Many of those people where basically
thrown out of their own country (the surplusd).
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
We know why Howard does it. In the 1930s the Nazis used the Reichstag
fire, alleged to have been lit by a mental retarded German who was
linked to the Communists, to create a witch-hunt against all Communists,
just like they used their scapegoat of the Dirty Jew to stoke
anti-Semitic fear and hatred to give him an electoral victory based
on hysteria and 'divide et empera'.. 'divide and conquer'.
What are you saying? Are you afraid for Muslims
I'm afraid for any society that allows politicians to manipulate
fear and hysteria into hate for scapegoats
I endorse that. However, I am not just afraid, I would fight if that
happens.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
because you think they are mentally retarded?
No, because I think you are.
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Howard has already used this technique in the past with witch-hunts
notably his vile attack on the most powerless minority ever to
be vilified and slandered by the elite; refugees who he claimed
threw their children overboard the infamous 'Truth Overboard' scandal.
That was not right.
Careful now, that almost sounded like you stood up and opposed
something.
I actually do, I don't take shit from anyone. Particularly not form
politicians.
Post by fasgnadh
Are you in danger of growing a backbone?
No, not really it seems
Post by Oldfart
However, on the other side of the story, if there
are constantly economic refugees
Like the English Settlers?
Post by Oldfart
who pay for coming here
The ten pound poms
Post by Oldfart
illegally (illegal immigrants)
Our Convict ancestors! YOU HERETIC, why are you slagging
our history and traditions, and trying to change them
so people can no longer come here for the reasons your ancestors
did!? Hypocrisy and Racism?
I am not trying to change Australian traditions. I just don't want them
too diluted orm more important, prohibited as politically incorrect.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Of course the most dangerous and tragic of his campaigns of
disinformation has been the disaster in Iraq where the Prime Minister
actually led us into a WAR of aggression based on a lie 'They have WMD's
which threaten us all'.
I totally agree with you here apart from the difference that we are
threatened that much provided the authorities try vigorously to prevent
terrorism and do not allow anyone from countries that either accept or
even support terrorism into the country, even not as tourists.
Howard has already let terrorists into the country, then out,
where the French promptly nabbed them! Willy Brigitte, 8^o
So much for Howard and Border Protection!
Right. Any law he passes only increases the power of his Government and
the authorities. That's the aim, empowering the bureaucrats and
authorities; preventing terrorism is just a smokescreen.
Post by fasgnadh
He let in over 30,000 visa illegals! they are still here.
Flew in dressed in neat casuals, just like Mohammad Atta
arrived in the USSA for the most devastating attack the world has seen.
What you don't seem to realize is that the War in Iraq has CREATED
more terror, turned it into a breeding ground for Al Qaida where
there were NONE, and MADE US ALL LESS SAFE as a result.
Correct
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
This time, Howard is attempting to use fear of terrorism, the very
threat he has INCREASED in Teqiraq, to insinuate that all Muslims,
rather that his government, are responsible for the acts of
individuals.. and to dog-whistle extremists who preach hate-speech
against Hindu's, Muslims, Masons, gamblers, drinkers, and johns.
I agree with the first part of your statement in full.
That will do for a start, listing more things you don't know is just a
waste of our time <snip>
Post by Oldfart
Post by fasgnadh
Fraser knows what is going on when the President slaps the Grand Dragon
Haven' heard about that. In any case, that's in the USA and I could not
give a shit about the USA and what goes on there.
B^D
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...