Remember the day that dirty bugger Herod played against John the baptist. Took his bloody head off.

Remember the day that dirty bugger Herod played against John the baptist. Took his bloody head off.

Think Herod would make a great CEO. May cause some problems with the Father - Son drafting arrangements though.

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.

You are just wrong. It is disappointing when people sprout off with definitive statements such as yours without actually knowing WTF they are talking about.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act legally prevents a person from insulting, humiliating, offending or intimidating another person or group on the basis of their race. It is the law the got Andrew Bolt into trouble for suggesting some people were receiving benefits of being aboriginal (such as givernment grants etc) but they did not 'look' aboriginal.

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.

And there lies the problem

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.

Why should religion be taboo or sacrosanct, when other just as valid beliefs are open to ridicule?

If I proclaim that I believe we should recruit Mick Martyn to replace Frawley, it is just as valid.

Conceptual argument, but religion has a terribly-disconcerting and fortunately-ever-decreasing sacred-cow status.

Remember the day that dirty bugger Herod played against John the baptist. Took his bloody head off.

Always said we should have drafted him ahead of Toumpas.

Why should religion be taboo or sacrosanct, when other just as valid beliefs are open to ridicule?

If I proclaim that I believe we should recruit Mick Martyn to replace Frawley, it is just as valid.

Conceptual argument, but religion has a terribly-disconcerting and fortunately-ever-decreasing sacred-cow status.

Surely you can see this difference between being allowed to discuss, or even criticise religion, and saying it is okay to religiously vilify an individual.

One is fine, the other is reprehensible.

Bloody hell what a complex conversation. I'll keep it simple and stick to vilifying, Moonshadow and Stuie for whatever reason I can conjure up. And, of course dc, for his nasty habits at the senior cits club/s.

I might even start vilifying Sue because her husband is a filth supporter -actually that is reasonable grounds for vilification.

Biffen for exploiting women. WYL for ..... well being WYL.

And I'll certainly vilify all those spoilsports who have blocked me.

I am a natural vilifyer.

Remember the day that dirty bugger Herod played against John the baptist. Took his bloody head off.

Got past the review panel though!

Surely you can see this difference between being allowed to discuss, or even criticise religion, and saying it is okay to religiously vilify an individual.

One is fine, the other is reprehensible.

Yes.

Yes, I can.

I respect others right to believe in a religion, and hold dear my right to mercilessly ridicule the idea of believing such laughable nonsense.

But... surely this discussion is taking place in the wrong thread.

And there lies the problem

Not really, Nasher was right in banning him for his reprehensible logic, even if he scooted past it as the reason for his decision to ban him.

Surely you can see this difference between being allowed to discuss, or even criticise religion, and saying it is okay to religiously vilify an individual.

One is fine, the other is reprehensible.

Yet the content is still visible for all to see. This is the perplexing aspect.

A poster is given two weeks for assumably posting content that violates the guidelines of this website (and the owners of the website are fully entitled to decide those guidelines as they see fit - no problem there).

This sight is modded well and I'm sure HH has "form" but there is some mixed messaging here I think.

Is it the opinion itself or the expression of that opinion that is the problem? If it is the expression of that opinion then simply delete the content. If it is the opinion itself (as it appears) then it's bordering on discrimination of other people's beliefs to ban them for having one - and no I do not come close to sharing that particular opinion of religion being fair game.

Saying "bad post, naughty, have 2 weeks off and come back a better poster" doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things if the offending content itself is not deleted. Is this a forum or a rehab program?

This is not a criticism merely a comment.

This Mitch Clark thing has been bloody hard on all of us, I think.

A couple of times I've snapped at my missus out of the blue, without a clue why.

I'm not saying Nasher's point wasn't valid, or that he lost the plot.

I'm just saying that emotions are running high even for those of us who aren't usually so easily exciteable.

Bugger me, who'd want to support a footy team?

I'm emotionally exhausted by it all, and it really has nothing to do with me.

This Mitch Clark thing has been bloody hard on all of us, I think.

A couple of times I've snapped at my missus out of the blue, without a clue why.

I'm not saying Nasher's point wasn't valid, or that he lost the plot.

I'm just saying that emotions are running high even for those of us who aren't usually so easily exciteable.

Bugger me, who'd want to support a footy team?

I'm emotionally exhausted by it all, and it really has nothing to do with me.

You are not on your own probably in a small group of 34 000

It is an interesting debate this just to change tangents a little

IMO

Religions are spiritual belief system that are based on humans search to the age old questions

where do we come from?

Why are we here? And

what happens when we die?

These three questions most belief systems provide their own answers for eg

Each religions and even cultures all have a creation story which the plot of all of them goes

First there was nothing (chaos) then something/one/being created form out of chaos and voila.

Sciences Big Bang Theory also runs along this plot. With the singularity or event causing form out of chaos.

Beliefs systems are deeply ingrained into our Psyche and even the most ardent Nihilist regardless will at some point ask themselves these question. (Usually at the time of their impending demise)

Nihilism in itself must be very lonely because a gathering of Nihilist what would you talk about - nothing?

beliefs systems like religion are also attached to our identity and our self esteem. Both of these things are deeply personal facets to our live so when we are challenged produce a defense that is vehement in it protection.

As I said its just an opinion and may not be for every one but I felt I just needed to share lol

It is an interesting debate this just to change tangents a little

IMO

Religions are spiritual belief system that are based on humans search to the age old questions

where do we come from?

Why are we here? And

what happens when we die?

These three questions most belief systems provide their own answers for eg

Each religions and even cultures all have a creation story which the plot of all of them goes

First there was nothing (chaos) then something/one/being created form out of chaos and voila.

Sciences Big Bang Theory also runs along this plot. With the singularity or event causing form out of chaos.

Beliefs systems are deeply ingrained into our Psyche and even the most ardent Nihilist regardless will at some point ask themselves these question. (Usually at the time of their impending demise)

Nihilism in itself must be very lonely because a gathering of Nihilist what would you talk about - nothing?

beliefs systems like religion are also attached to our identity and our self esteem. Both of these things are deeply personal facets to our live so when we are challenged produce a defense that is vehement in it protection.

As I said its just an opinion and may not be for every one but I felt I just needed to share lol

Could add to the big questions

How do we best live our lives?

What constitutes a good life?

I would suggest the answers don't involve supporting the Dees.

You are just wrong. It is disappointing when people sprout off with definitive statements such as yours without actually knowing WTF they are talking about.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act legally prevents a person from insulting, humiliating, offending or intimidating another person or group on the basis of their race. It is the law the got Andrew Bolt into trouble for suggesting some people were receiving benefits of being aboriginal (such as givernment grants etc) but they did not 'look' aboriginal.

Yep, you're absolutely right. I completely misunderstood the wording of that section and happy to be called on it.

Could add to the big questions

How do we best live our lives?

What constitutes a good life?

I would suggest the answers don't involve supporting the Dees.

And the next question on the Big Questions list:

Which is better - Carlton Draught or Vic Bitter?

Yep, you're absolutely right. I completely misunderstood the wording of that section and happy to be called on it.

Good on you. Fair enough.

To me the whole debate is about that word. What is offence? Wow you'll get a lot of answers from a lot of different people. Its impossible IMO to legislate and deal with this in a court of law.

Good on you. Fair enough.

To me the whole debate is about that word. What is offence? Wow you'll get a lot of answers from a lot of different people. Its impossible IMO to legislate and deal with this in a court of law.

My view is you have to have something, the boundary line will always be grey and, as is the case with lots of areas of law, Courts have to do their best to decide whether particular things drop on one side of the line or the other.

Plenty of stuff is almost impossible to define legislatively, but I guess that doesn't mean it should be dropped entirely.

I do agree though that the word offend is pretty woolly. Stronger words like vilify are less grey and easier for everyone to interpret.

Good on you. Fair enough.

To me the whole debate is about that word. What is offence? Wow you'll get a lot of answers from a lot of different people. Its impossible IMO to legislate and deal with this in a court of law.

Neither impossible to legislate or deal with in court as Andrew Bolt found out. Whether one agrees with the legislation or the findings against Bolt is a completely different debate.

Does the afl list it's rules around religious bigotry anywhere?

Would love to take a read only because it's such a complex issue it'd be fascinating to note the phrasing.

Religion is much more about personal choice and personal choice is something we've historically struggled to legislate around because often one groups personal choices conceptually oppose another's. It's kind of how we define ourselves culturally - our sense of who we are is often easier defined but what we oppose.

Which is not to say I think it's ok to not like someone because they belief something different. It might be a blurry line about if it's defined as 'racism' but it's pretty easy to define it as wilful ignorance manifesting as bigotry, which might even be worse.

Neither impossible to legislate or deal with in court as Andrew Bolt found out. Whether one agrees with the legislation or the findings against Bolt is a completely different debate.

My guess is that if you were in a court case with say Fred Nile who claimed he was 'offended' by something you said that you might have a different opinion.

If you have well funded minority groups firing off legal claims left right and centre about being offended you are going to suffer from censorship everywhere. Frankly as we have in this thread. Its an expensive exercise defending a spurious lawsuit as I have done and most people will stay well away from it when faced with zealous, well funded groups that are easily 'offended' - whatever that means.

Its a terrible addition to what was a perfectly adequate existing law.

Edited September 11, 201410 yr by jnrmac

Good on you. Fair enough.

To me the whole debate is about that word. What is offence? Wow you'll get a lot of answers from a lot of different people. Its impossible IMO to legislate and deal with this in a court of law.

I agree with you hard to legislate and go further impossible to legislate

The intent is the issue and the remedy is an apology and perhaps some mutual learning

I am sorry I offended you, I did not mean to, but as you have explained why you were offended I will try not to repeat my offence

I agree with you hard to legislate and go further impossible to legislate

The intent is the issue and the remedy is an apology and perhaps some mutual learning

I am sorry I offended you, I did not mean to, but as you have explained why you were offended I will try not to repeat my offence

None taken ha ha