Would like to hear from Guru Bob down at the Temple.

Should H_H really get weeks for that?

What he said and the way he said it and who is looks bad, but he didn't vilify anyone. He just said he thinks religion is fair game.

Even if he said he thinks racism is fair game, doesn't mean he has racially abused someone.

He put his thoughts out there, and people know what kind of person he is, isn't that punishment enough?

Censorship and forced political correctness hide who people truly are, I like to know who I'm dealing with, but that's just me.

Should H_H really get weeks for that?

What he said and the way he said it and who is looks bad, but he didn't vilify anyone. He just said he thinks religion is fair game.

Even if he said he thinks racism is fair game, doesn't mean he has racially abused someone.

He put his thoughts out there, and people know what kind of person he is, isn't that punishment enough?

Censorship and forced political correctness hide who people truly are, I like to know who I'm dealing with, but that's just me.

Correct, he did not vilify someone, but he condoned vilification to anyone on the basis of religion. The words "fair game" to me indicates he finds it perfectly acceptable, and the fact it was in response to an article about BH would cause serious offence to him or other people of faith.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by Moonshadow

Correct, he did not vilify someone, but he condoned vilification to anyone on the basis of religion. The words "fair game" to me indicates he finds it perfectly acceptable.

Some people find capital punishment acceptable, doesn't mean they've killed anyone.

Free speech does't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want - It only extends to political communications.

Have a read of our constitution before speaking such carp.

Racial or religious vilification should always be singled out and condemned.

Last time I checked, our Constitution said nothing about free speech.

It talks about lighthouses and buoys, and weights and measures and coinage and all kinds of other nonsense, but no free speech.

Something is seriously wrong if we can can permit a bloke to be called a terrorist of the basis of either appearance. culture or religion.

To think that it is ok behind the guise of free speech is stupid.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

How old are you HH?

How old are you HH?

He will be two weeks older when he gets back to you.

I agree Jabber. I find being called an infidel by some religious group totally outrageous and totally unacceptable.

Some people find capital punishment acceptable, doesn't mean they've killed anyone.

Correct, but condoning capital punishment means they condone the person being killed. I'm not religious at all, yet I have no problem with Houli's personal beliefs. That does not mean I agree with him being vilified, which is what h_h did.

Correct, but condoning capital punishment means they condone the person being killed. I'm not religious at all, yet I have no problem with Houli's personal beliefs. That does not mean I agree with him being vilified, which is what h_h did.

I don't like it either, I'm just saying I think it's harsh he gets banned when he never actually abused anyone.

He gave us further insight into who he is, people had a crack at him for what he believes in, familiar cycle.

Last time I checked, our Constitution said nothing about free speech.

It talks about lighthouses and buoys, and weights and measures and coinage and all kinds of other nonsense, but no free speech.

There's an implied freedom of political communication that is derived from the constitution.

This allows "free speech" in respect of making political comments or criticising the government. It does not extend to normal/every day speech.

Hence my point - people cannot go spouting racially or religiously charged comments and hide behind a veil of "free speech". That concept does not exist here like it does in the states.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by Vanilla Gorilla

well if you think racial stereotyping is aesthetic vilification and not racial vilification then go ahead

but i suspect you were just trying to be smart

No, he was vilified based on his appearance, not necessarily his race.

I agree Jabber. I find being called an infidel by some religious group totally outrageous and totally unacceptable.

Yes ignorance is not defined by race or religion. This is the point. Infidel and terrorist?

One is telling me i am not going to heaven because I am not Muslim, the other that I kill people because I am.

One is is ignorant and stupid. The other is disgraceful and inexcuseable.

I suppose that may be the distinction between being critical and vilification that Old Dee was getting to earlier.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

Should H_H really get weeks for that?

What he said and the way he said it and who is looks bad, but he didn't vilify anyone. He just said he thinks religion is fair game.

Even if he said he thinks racism is fair game, doesn't mean he has racially abused someone.

He put his thoughts out there, and people know what kind of person he is, isn't that punishment enough?

Censorship and forced political correctness hide who people truly are, I like to know who I'm dealing with, but that's just me.

HH missing a couple of weeks on here will do him some good.

I agree he was banned for stupidity rather than offensiveness but the fact that he thinks you can call someone a 'terrorist' because of their religion means he needed this teachable moment...

And besides, he was having a terrible few weeks on here.

Form really nosedived from a low altitude.

International.....as in North Korea, Syria, and of course our great friends Saudi etc etc

Yes Monoccular International usually means interactions between a number of nations. Funny group of nations to choose though. It would seem you are trying to make a point but are not able to articulate it.

Or your joking.

Should H_H really get weeks for that?

What he said and the way he said it and who is looks bad, but he didn't vilify anyone. He just said he thinks religion is fair game.

Even if he said he thinks racism is fair game, doesn't mean he has racially abused someone.

He put his thoughts out there, and people know what kind of person he is, isn't that punishment enough?

Censorship and forced political correctness hide who people truly are, I like to know who I'm dealing with, but that's just me.

also it aids debate & understanding. often a few words don't give a true idea of a persons thoughts. sometimes sounds worse than their thinking truly is.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by dee-luded

Should H_H really get weeks for that?

What he said and the way he said it and who is looks bad, but he didn't vilify anyone. He just said he thinks religion is fair game.

Absolutely right. You can disagree with what he said (and I do) but he did not vilify anyone. He simply said you ought to be able to do it. To ban him is insanity.

What is happening here is the textbook definition of political correctness.

Absolutely right. You can disagree with what he said (and I do) but he did not vilify anyone. He simply said you ought to be able to do it. To ban him is insanity.

What is happening here is the textbook definition of political correctness.

To be fair - he equated being called a 'terrorist' to vilifying someone's religion while he was saying all that...

I really don't think HH is the hero of the Anti-PC Agenda...

"HOGAN....14 days in the Cooler...."

How old are you HH?

From memory he claims he is in his 20s, which I find almost impossible to believe.

I don't agree Moon IMO there is too much PC around.

I don't like the comment but we do have free speech in this country.

No we don't. There is nothing in the Australian constitution that enshrines freedom of speech as a right. The closest thing we have to a right to freedom of speech is that we are a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and even that doesn't specifically declare free speech to be an inalienable right.

Free speech does't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want - It only extends to political communications.

Have a read of our constitution before speaking such carp.

Racial or religious vilification should always be singled out and condemned.

Not to be nit picky, but the right to free speech for political communications is not actually in the Constitution. It was 'discovered' by High Court judges in various cases before them.

Deplorable comment. Have two weeks off.

Religious vilification is no more "fair game" than racial vilification. Anyone else who wants to suggest it is can join h_h on the ban list.

Nasher! You've stopped the stream of comedy for two whole weeks. How on earth do we get our laughing fix now??

As soon as you ban free speech you put democracy at risk IMO.

Who decides what is correct and what is not?

Sorry don't agree with your decision.

It is pretty simple. The right to free speech is tempered by the prohibition on racial/religious vilification. Not that hard to grasp, really, and preventing people from spouting race hate doesn't impinge on free speech in the slightest. It just stops race hate.