Sorry don't agree nutbean GB gave up because of a hostile senate but that is another story.

Why do you think the Senate was hostile?

Gosh some of the guff on this thread is incredible.

It is a very slippery slope when you have legislation to support the right not be offended. What is offence anyway? I'm offended by some of the comments on this thread but some others may not be. Who determines that? Some nebulus concept called community standards? Which community? What standard?

Just sayin...

It isn't a slippery slope at all. There is nothing in the law that says anybody has the right not to be offended. The law is that you can't vilify people. If the legislation changes, and 'community standards' or the 'community' don't like it, then vote for the party which wants to change it and if the majority of people agree with you, it will get changed.

Exhibit 1 - recent attempts to change 18C. The community, democracy, whatever, flatly refused to accept a regression in those standards.

Moon I dont like the comment but IMO you have to be very careful when imposing censorship.

The first act of a dictator is censorship.

What seems right and proper on one subject can easily be not right on another.

It very much depends on the censors view.

This is not censorship and doesn't depend on the censor's view. It depends on the law.

I'd rather not go out anymore and not have to deal with it.

Footy is relatively peaceful at home, at least in the shed.

Vilification is bullying. Advocating or justifying bullying is not on.

Laws have so far identified some common targets of bullying, but I expect there's more to come. Think current focus on pedophile behaviour, domestic violence, corporal punishment, sexism - with ageism next cab off the rank, and then who knows, roadhog driving, kids freezing in inadequate school uniforms, politicians lying-obfuscating, Hollywood violence operas, bank fees and other faceless computerised rip-offs, holier-than-thou-ism, etc etc - there's a long way to go to make our society ok for all, not just for those with greater power. Somewhere down the line hegemonic foreign policy will be seen for what it is, and opposed. I think we are living through a big trend, towards civilisation.

A thirteen-year-old student suggested to me once that everyone dies and emerges on the other side with some sort of consciousness; and she'd been thinking, is it heaven or hell? That depends, she told me she'd realised, on whether or not you are happy with the state of the world over which you no longer can exert any influence. She thought God would have it all his own way once we were dead, so that our consciousness could impose nothing on anything any more, and all it would be able to enjoy would be Nature and so on. The diversity, the sunrises, seasons and growth and so on. If that lot is your thing, eternity watching it has to be heaven; but if you are say a petrol-head or hard-drinking picker of fights, unending passive powerlessness with no opportunities to do your thing would have to be hell. Maybe there's something in this for living people - leave aside all the controlling and dominating, and co-exist with generosity; it'd be a happy way to be. Sport must be a special case, I suppose - ritualised competition, within rules, determined by skill and quick response to chance. No need to be nasty - there's a real cameraderie among players in any code.... Maybe I'm as dopey as a thirteen-year-old girl, you want to say?...

And I think Jesus must have been a nice bloke. He stuck up for the little guys. I imagine he'd be pretty puzzled by what religion is largely about today; probably get annoyed and upend their tables. There's a story in the Bible that Jesus killed a tree once, in a moment of frustration or a bad mood. You don't have to be perfect.

Edited September 11, 201410 yr by robbiefrom13

Jesus drafted many disciples but unfortunately the Galilean culture at the time meant none of them came on. The Romans snared franklin and Tippett. It was never going to have a happy ending for Jesus after that.

With the current actions of ISIS and the the national security threat in our own country potentially being raised to high I can see why people might feel threatened by the presence of followers of Islam in our country and therefore can see where this alleged comment comes from.

Not saying it is OK for this comment to be directed at the individual in question and I am sure they will be penalised.

I have to say though I am a lot more concerned with the threat posed by some followers of this religion in our land than I am upset about someone being vilified based on the understandable fear we are living with.

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.

Unfortunately it doesn't, it just stops people saying things.

Jesus drafted many disciples but unfortunately the Galilean culture at the time meant none of them came on. The Romans snared franklin and Tippett. It was never going to have a happy ending for Jesus after that.

I would be very wary of $cully in the Garden of Gethsemane.

the problem with xxxxx vilification is in the definition. it is just too vague and lends itself to political manipulation

ok, i'll bite - what would jesus do in this case?

Probably tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, to make the point to look past the race, religion and other superficial features to see the person involved as a fellow traveller and not some simplistic label.

Jaded, I don't agree with this - you do choose your religion. You cannot choose race. Totally, fundamentally different. Religion is a belief - it is not genetic. And when you get into it, race isn't either but that is an argument for another day.

The line on vilification is, with religion, murky IMO. I think Little Goffy got it right on this. Criticism is one thing; playing the prejudice game is another.

It is simply an avoidable fact that people - religious people - have done and continue to do the most disgusting, appalling things imaginable inspired by faith. There are, of course, other motivators that are just part of human nature or cultural learning. However, religion has been a toxic influence around the world since verbal history began. You only have to look at Israel and Palestine to see the true horror of religious excuse making. When you think of the fear, death, murder, mayhem, torture, displacement, loss of identity, loss of future, loss of family....And you don't even need to 'pick a side'.

Religion is a totally different beast to race. I cannot choose being caucasian (whatever that means). I chose to drop Catholicism.

Having a go at someone because of a stereotype is demonstrating prejudice. No question. The problem arises where there is actual, reality-based evidence for elements of the stereotype. Then you demonstrate prejudice which, depending on the individual, may be accurate. The problem is it is generally not true - and all the other associated meaning aren't either - and labeling an entire group while being a [censored] about it is, in a a multi-culture, multi-race, multi-faith society, not on.

Jesus drafted many disciples but unfortunately the Galilean culture at the time meant none of them came on. The Romans snared franklin and Tippett. It was never going to have a happy ending for Jesus after that.

Picking up Judas and Pilate the year after didn't help his cause, either.

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

DA, I find encouraging religious vilification just as offensive as practicing it, hence the ban. We (forum admin) generally support people's right to an opinion, however we also believe that this is an important social issue, and saying "religion is free game", i.e. you are welcome to abuse people as much as you like about their religion, is not a message we will support, or find acceptable in any way.

And I think Jesus must have been a nice bloke. He stuck up for the little guys. I imagine he'd be pretty puzzled by what religion is largely about today;

He'd probably be a buddhist.

Probably tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, to make the point to look past the race, religion and other superficial features to see the person involved as a fellow traveller and not some simplistic label.

i think he may have expelled the vilificator from the temple of sport (mcg), just as he expelled the money changers from the temple accusing them of turning the temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities.

One hopes he and his disciples find time to visit afl house one day

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.

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

This was the logic of what HH said:

1. Houli was called a terrorist.

2. People are called Terrorists because of their chosen religion - Islam.

3. Houli was religiously vilified because of his religion, not his race.

4. That is fine.

Frankly, I find point 2 of his logic utterly reprehensible.

If taken in a vacuum, HH wouldn't have been banned, IMO Nasher has sub-consciously read the reprehensible logic behind the post and banned him accordingly.

This was the logic of what HH said:

1. Houli was called a terrorist.

2. People are called Terrorists because of their chosen religion - Islam.

3. Houli was religiously vilified because of his religion, not his race.

4. That is fine.

Frankly, I find point 2 of his logic utterly reprehensible.

If taken in a vacuum, HH wouldn't have been banned, IMO Nasher has sub-consciously read the reprehensible logic behind the post and banned him accordingly.

or we could go with H_H was banned " just because" and I'm not sure many would disagree or argue with that either.

i think he may have expelled the vilificator from the temple of sport (mcg), just as he expelled the money changers from the temple accusing them of turning the temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities.

One hopes he and his disciples find time to visit afl house one day

The bit about judgement day and sorting sheep from goats comes to mind ... somehow I suspect you think the goats will be in abundance ...

Putting aside HH for a moment (who could have been banned understandably for a 1000 reasons )

I think most posters would agree that houli was unfairly and offensively vilified and the vilificator deserves to be ejected from the stadium and possibly banned from afl games for a period of time

The question remains though under what category was he vilified

On further thought we don't really know unless the vilificator himself explains his "logic"

all we know is he made reference to houli being a "terrorist"

three options are possible

racial vilification - stereotyping people of middle eastern origin as terrorists

religious vilification - stereotyping muslims as terrorists

machsy's "aesthetic" vilification - stereotyping people with a full beard as terrorists

just saying

The bit about judgement day and sorting sheep from goats comes to mind ... somehow I suspect you think the goats will be in abundance ...

i'm more inclined to the pagan egyptian judgement day when anubis gets his scales out and weighs one's heart to determined whether a soul would be allowed to enter the realm of the dead

i'm more inclined to the pagan egyptian judgement day when anubis gets his scales out and weighs one's heart to determined whether a soul would be allowed to enter the realm of the dead

I have watched nearly every game the MFC have played - after the past 6 seasons watching I can confirm that I am already in the realm of the dead.

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.

We already had that. Now we have a law that says you can't 'offend' someone based on same.

I am guessing there would be at least a million ways to define that. Try grasping that before sprouting the 'not that hard to grasp' dismissive line.

Putting aside HH for a moment (who could have been banned understandably for a 1000 reasons )

I think most posters would agree that houli was unfairly and offensively vilified and the vilificator deserves to be ejected from the stadium and possibly banned from afl games for a period of time

The question remains though under what category was he vilified

On further thought we don't really know unless the vilificator himself explains his "logic"

all we know is he made reference to houli being a "terrorist"

three options are possible

racial vilification - stereotyping people of middle eastern origin as terrorists

religious vilification - stereotyping muslims as terrorists

machsy's "aesthetic" vilification - stereotyping people with a full beard as terrorists

just saying

Or we could ask the Greens who say we should stop using the word terrorist because it 'demonises' people.

Wouldn't want to hurt the beheaders feelings now would we....

i'm more inclined to the pagan egyptian judgement day when anubis gets his scales out and weighs one's heart to determined whether a soul would be allowed to enter the realm of the dead

I can see where you are coming from. There are some of us who are fortunate that it would be the heard weighed, and not the brain ...