Dom Post on free speech

September 21st, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial:

The anti-Muslim movie blamed for the wave of violence sweeping across the Muslim world is an appalling piece of propaganda. The work of a convicted conman, it is utterly without merit – artistic, historical or intellectual.

The same might  also be said of the grotesque caricatures published  by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo depicting the prophet Mohammed in a range of demeaning positions. They are offensive, insulting and designed to provoke.

Neither, however, is reason for the murder of innocents, the storming of embassies or the further propagation of hatred. Perhaps the most shocking of all the images seen since United States ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed in an attack linked to the movie was that of a small child at a protest in Sydney holding aloft a sign bearing the words: ”Behead all those who insult the Prophet.”

That is not the Australian way, it is not the Western way and it should not be the way anywhere. As one Australian politician observed: ”Kids of this age should be playing hide and seek, not calling for jihad or beheadings.”

That was so incredibly disturbing. The one good thing from it is that there has been such a backlash against these violent protests in Australia, that the extremists are being marginalised.

Tags: , , ,

138 Responses to “Dom Post on free speech”

  1. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    100% orchestrated by power hungry politicians and media willing to cash in.
    0% spontaneous.

    As always – same for Maori BS here, Northern Ireland, … the list is endless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And you know what the mother in Sydney’s excuse was? She didn’t know what the word behead means……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    We have managed to keep this element out of NZ long may that continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. smttc (752 comments) says:

    Islam – The religion of the thinned skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    The good news is that the kid in the picture and his family aren’t Australian citizens, so as long as the government has the balls (they do) they will be on a plane back to the middle east and won’t be allowed back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “one good thing from it is that… the extremists are being marginalised”

    Hmmh. We’ll see. Lots of talk now by liberals elites but let’s see what happens when it comes to actually doing something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    The people of the middle east have invented a machine to go backwards in time.

    Its called Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. markblackham (13 comments) says:

    Hold on – it’s okay for the west to be offensive, but not muslims? Everyone is free to have a go in my book. The kid’s and banner was pretty ugly, as was the sentiment behind the muslim protest but there’s a world of difference between saying stuff and doing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    The good news is that the kid in the picture and his family aren’t Australian citizens, so as long as the government has the balls (they do) they will be on a plane back to the middle east and won’t be allowed back.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Why the fuck is the Obama administration running ads in Pakistan apologizing for free speech?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10835498

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “murder of innocents” ??

    I don’t like this equivocation, it implies that there are “guilty” people out there, such as the makers of this movie.

    The Dom Post should state that there is no justification for violence based on hurt feelings, of any type, ever.

    To quote Stephen Fry.

    It’s now very common to hear people say ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights; it’s actually nothing more…it’s simply a whine. ‘I find that offensive,’ it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I’m offended by that,’ well so fucking what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    In a perfect world it would always be used responsibly and respectfully. But no society can be accountable for the actions of every individual all of the time. The price of free speech is that it will sometimes be misused to cause offence and hurt.

    Maybe I’m nitpicking an otherwise reasonable article, but causing offense does not constitute the “misuse” of the freedom to speak ones mind. It is exactly what freedom of speech is designed to protect. There is no need to protect popular speech. Speech which enrages other people is exactly the type of speech that needs and deserves protection because it is so threatened by intimidation and violence from angry mobs.

    Freedom of speech allows any opinion to be advocated for on the basis that individuals should be free to form their own ideas as to what constitutes “truth” and that the marketplace of ideas will naturally elevate those ideas which have merit by resisting all attempts at contradiction with nothing more than the strength of argument.

    Absolute freedom of contradiction is the only basis upon which rational people can have any confidence in their beliefs and that necessarily means entertaining offensive ideas. Nothing false is shown to be so through a lack of consideration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Islam, the vilest of all. A creed for imbeciles, morons and backward-looking people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Hold on – it’s okay for the west to be offensive, but not muslims?

    It’s fine for muslims to make their point. What people in Australia have had a gutful of is them doing it all the fucking time, and it turning into a riot last Sunday.
    Most people over here are happy for immigrants to come to Australia. It’s not unreasonable to expect that the baggage from the old country is left at the door, and they make an effort to become “Australian” and to fit in. You don’t get maoris on the Gold Coast protesting about water rights, they left all that bullshit in the land of the long white cloud. Same should go for immigrants from the middle east.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    markblackham at 11:22 am

    Hold on – it’s okay for the west to be offensive, but not muslims? Everyone is free to have a go in my book. The kid’s and banner was pretty ugly, as was the sentiment behind the muslim protest but there’s a world of difference between saying stuff and doing it.

    Fair point.

    There have been just as ugly statements on New Zealand blogs including here, like suggestions of shooting and hanging people that commenters don’t like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Muslim fanaticism is cancerous. The majority of them are not militant like the cancerous militant minority, however, the nature of cancerous cells is to overtake the whole of the healthy body and this is what we are witnessing today. It makes them all looked the same, ie thuggery.

    The worse outcome of this is that most of the (leftist) media in the West apologized to the Muslims for this free-speech. That only encourages Muslim thuggery to act violently against the interests of the West. Hitler should have realized during world war 2 that he picked on the wrong race or religion (Jews). He should have picked on the Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    It would be okay if the Aussie govt had removed that child (and any others) from the parents and put them in care, where hatred isn’t promoted from a young age. But they didn’t for some reason.

    But then its not uncommon for westerners to use children in political protests either, sometimes holding questionable or hateful signs (look no further than the TVNZ news story on Christchurch schools for an example). So if they had taken the kids off the parents, then I guess they’d have to also do likewise for other protests. To which there would be a backlash I’m sure.

    Perhaps it is time for countries to come up with a law banning children under the age of say 14 from being at protests?

    As for the stupidity of the original film maker, and those responding to it. Saying stupid things shouldn’t be banned, it should be encouraged, then we can let society show the stupid how stupid they really are.
    But murder and voilence just because you disagree with what someone says is never okay in any country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    What annoys me is that they have seen it necessary to attack and criticise the film and the film maker, I find even that cowardly.

    The character of the cartoons or the films and their makers is irrelevant and I have been disappointed at the shear number of people who have been cajoled into publicly criticising them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    FF – They were too busy being allied to the Muslims to eliminate the Jews once and for all. The Germans recruited an entire division of Arabs who thought they were going to go to fight the jihad in the Middle East, but they got shipped to fight the Russians instead in the snow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    Gazzmaniac @ 11.30: Well said. If we don’t learn from the Australian experience of open ended “multi culturalism” then we deserve what we get. I’m afraid I just don’t buy the whole “only the extremists are dangerous” line…The muslims are nice and peaceful and well behaved here because there are not many of them. If that changes, why on earth would our experience be any different from the Australians’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Its just that its disengenous to lump all people together for what a few do when whipped up by power hungry elites.

    Penny or minto will get a few anaemic vegans out to a protest (on behalf of the politicians that back them) but does that mean all New Zealanders are ignorant twats?

    The northern ireland situations was a classic – a few politicians whipping up young criminals never represented the majority view, but the press was happy to report it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. alex (304 comments) says:

    Does anyone really think this furore is just over a film, and not, say, multiple Muslim countries which are occupied by Western forces? Or decades of homegrown dictators supported by the West?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    The muslims are nice and peaceful and well behaved here because there are not many of them. If that changes, why on earth would our experience be any different from the Australians’?

    Because Muslims in New Zealand would learn from reading blogs that we are all peaceful and tolerant here so they would follow suit.

    Muslims have just become the current bogey group in a historical line of bogeys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    rolla_fxgt (274) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 11:41 am

    It would be okay if the Aussie govt had removed that child (and any others) from the parents and put them in care, where hatred isn’t promoted from a young age. But they didn’t for some reason.

    Not so sure I agree.

    While I believe such use of a child to be unethical, the danger would be that removing children would be a defacto punishment for parents whose speech the government doesn’t like. You classify their speech as “hateful” and then remove their children while disingenuously claiming that they have freedom of speech.

    Many on this blog might be justifiably concerned if their anti-homosexual commentary were deemed harmful to their children thus serving as the pretext for taking their children off of them.

    That’s not to say that there would be no situations where political activity harmed a child to such an extent as to warrant intervention but the threshold should be high and not exercised merely on the basis that a parent is expressing a disagreeable point of view. There must be demonstrable harm for the child over and above the mere fact of exposure to disagreeable points of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    tvb at 11:15 am

    ….’We have managed to keep this element out of NZ long may that continue;…..

    Believe that and the next thing youll be telling me that pigs can fly.

    These sorts of things as happened in Sydney are proof positive that imigration controls are VERY important and that governments like those of Ausy and NZ needs to do a lot more to protect the environment (thats cultural environment – not the bloody trees etc) in their societies. Anyone whose spent a bit of time in England can see what virtually uncontrolled imigration has done to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    tvb (2,853) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 11:15 am

    We have managed to keep this element out of NZ long may that continue.

    Really? Seems to me the same types of attitudes were on display a number of years ago during the cartoon controversy. Many marched down Queen Street not only advocating against freedom of speech but also informing on the potential consequences if we did not comply.

    People keep talking about moderates vs extremists but to me that seems all irrelevant. While there are plenty of Muslims (the majority perhaps?) who have no interest in going out to engage in violent jihad, moderates and extremists share an important cultural attitude: both believe that insulting and questioning Islam is unacceptable and should result in legal penalties. This is demonstrated throughout the Muslim world where such penalties exist and are enforced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Cross posted from today’s GD:
    DPF, when will you publish the prophet cartoons just printed by the French? Make KB even prouder!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    PG: you are taking the piss Pete, right?

    Alex: Of COURSE it is all about the nasty intolerant war mongering west! How silly of the rest of us to be concerned about another lot of stone agers coming here…stone agers who believe in beheading for “insulting the prophet” and God knows what else, and think women can manage quite nicely thanks with their clitoris’ missing..

    No thanks to any of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Because Muslims in New Zealand would learn from reading blogs that we are all peaceful and tolerant here so they would follow suit.

    You cannot be serious, P.G. You know full well how intolerant Muslims are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrei (2,654 comments) says:

    Muslims have just become the current bogey group in a historical line of bogeys.

    There goes my coffee all over my screen.

    Islam has been in conflict with the West and Western ideals for fourteen hundred years.

    In the past decade the “bogey man” has been responsible for major atrocities committed in New York, Washington DC, London, Madrid, Moscow and others.

    You cannot get on an airplane in a provincial New Zealand airport with a young child without her teddy bear being x-rayed (a personal experience of mine some years ago) in order to keep the pretense up that young Muslim men do not constitute a greater threat to the well being of their fellow passengers than normal everyday people.

    FFS in the land of the “free”, the USA, they even rummage through incontinent old ladies diapers lest they be suicide bombers.

    And and this will continue and worsen until our elites stop fucking apologizing for things we didn’t do and are not responsible for and call out and deal to those who are responsible for them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    **Good on the movie-maker, and good on Charlie Hebdo!**
    I’ve just sent an email to Charlie Hebdo saying “well done” for publishing those cartoons.
    The mohammedans need to get it into their thick skulls that **free speech stays.** We will NOT back down. This is IT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Does anyone really think this furore is just over a film, and not, say, multiple Muslim countries which are occupied by Western forces? Or decades of homegrown dictators supported by the West?

    No, they are about the Al Qaeda/Salafist agenda
    If they were really concerned about ‘western oppression’ there would riots/protests would be about that.
    As for the concern about Dictators (western back or not) you just have to look at the difference in tone and size between these and the Arab Spring protests last year and other pro-democracy protests

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    Andrei: We are quite different kinds of conservatives, but I agree completely with that post…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    DG – I’m partly making a point taking the piss. Obviously being sarcastic about the tolerance and peacefulness on blogs.

    There have been fears and dscrimination in the past of ‘other peoples’, for example Chinese, Irish, Reds. Those supposed threats have changed substantially, and not due to exclusion and vilification.

    There are things I abhor about some Muslim organisations, people and practices. I think we have to stand up strongly to riots because some people,act offended and use it as an excuse to riot.

    But if we expect them to be better we have to act better.

    And there are a number of things that worry me more in New Zealand than Muslims, who have given no cause for concern locally.

    Just as we can’t lock certain people up in case they might do crime, we can’t exclude about an eight of the world’s population just in case they might riot. If we want to have a decent society.

    I don’t recall seeing any Muslims being involved in the Dunedin student riots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    A great post by Sam Harris on this topic, well worth reading.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

    The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.

    The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. alex (304 comments) says:

    @DG – Selective outrage eh? That suits you well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Chistchurch – ” Teachers Brainwashing their kids to be pawns”.
    Jump to :-
    Islam protest march – “a small child at a protest in Sydney holding aloft a sign bearing the words: ”Behead all those who insult the Prophet”.

    Not a big jump huh. Now who’s defending the exploitation of KIDS to meet your own ends????? Freedom of speech as some justify it with or child abuse. They don’t sound like a childs thoughts to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    I agree with much of what Andrei said as well (but x-rays are not required on non-jet provincial flights). There has been an overreaction to the threats.

    But I think the best way to stand up to intimidation and threat has to be something better than intimidating and threatening and excluding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Just a general response to MarkBlackham’s 11.22am comment:

    There are two genuine and reasonable exceptions to the principle of free speech, those being speech that incites violence and speech that is defamatory. When you say 

    The kid’s and banner was pretty ugly, as was the sentiment behind the muslim protest but there’s a world of difference between saying stuff and doing it.

    you are including within the realm of freedom of speech something that has never been an accepted part of it.  The incited violence does not have to be towards a specific person, just a general incitement is sufficient to be outside of the concept of free speech.

    Therefore your point is incorrect.  The child’s banner was a direct incitement to violence and therefore the difference between saying it and doing it is moot.  The speech that the child was making is not and never has been protected by freedom of speech. 

    Indeed, were he older it could be considered a criminal offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    ***That is not the Australian way, it is not the Western way and it should not be the way anywhere. As one Australian politician observed: ”Kids of this age should be playing hide and seek, not calling for jihad or beheadings.”***

    So inviting people from those countries into Western ones would seem a really stupid idea right?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Indeed, were he older it could be considered a criminal offence.

    But not it you are Muslim, it seems. Look, I have no care about their signs. Their signs are free speech as well. It is when their signs and rage have Western governments running and knocking their heads on the floor apologising to Islamic shitholes and theocratic dictators and giving away our freedoms that I have an issue with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Manolo asked…

    DPF, when will you publish the prophet cartoons just printed by the French? Make KB even prouder!

    Manolo, Not PC blog has published them.

    Cartoons, courage and surviving Muslim rage

    Its sad that Peter Creswell’s intellects & his insights into politics, philosophy, history, economics, etc,… are not the sort of knowledge that our media want to have in the studio to argue against others. Who do we have? Well, you frequently see Hone, John Minto, Willie Jackson, Sue Bradford, Bernard Hickey, Tariana, Matt McCarten and others. No wondered that the members of the general public are misinformed about important issues that affect us all because they only consumed the rubbish coming from the commentating that our media (with their selected philosophy, history, politics & economics’ illiterates commentators) regularly presented to them.

    If I was a top management at the Herald, I would put Mr Creswell up there as one of their regular opinion writers and kick out Tapu Misa, because she has published so many misinformed articles about entitlement & wealth redistribution, which makes everyone in South Auckland think that the government is there to look after them indefinitely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Muslims are taught to hate by their leaders. They refer to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs.

    It’s time to tell Muslims we do not tolerate their behaviour and it’s unacceptable, particular in a Western country where free speech is one of our most cherished freedoms.

    And making fun of and mocking things, particular religion is a protected right. If you dont like it go to another country, like Syria. I hear it’s a great country for non-mocking of Islam and Mohammad, and a great chance for a 1 way ticket to heaven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Look, I have no care about their signs. Their signs are free speech as well.

    That was my point: they are not free speech. Incitement to violence is not a part of freedom of speech.  We should never accept any supposed ‘free speech’ that involves an incitement to violence.

    It is perfectly acceptable to condemn the actions of a person, or to say that they are wrong.  It would even be ok for a sign to say that the film maker had offended Allah and was going to go to hell when he died.

    But to incite violence (as opposed to saying something that provokes a violent reaction, which is completely different) is and should be completely unacceptable, no matter what the situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,141) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Just a general response to MarkBlackham’s 11.22am comment:

    There are two genuine and reasonable exceptions to the principle of free speech, those being speech that incites violence and speech that is defamatory.

    But when precisely does speech qualify as “incitement to” violence?

    In a basic sense the term “incite” simply means encouragement to action. But is this itself sufficient? If I have a banner that reads “kill all murderers” am I inciting violence or engaging in political advocacy for the death penalty?

    Similarly is the banner in question inciting violence or an expression of political advocacy in support of the death penalty for blasphemy?

    As I understand the imminent lawless action test in the US, it is not enough that an expression encourage some lawless action at some indefinite future time. Moreover, an expression must be likely to incite such lawlessness. In this context the banner, especially in the context of a political protest, would surely not meet the test and can be taken in the context of a political argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    particular in a Western country where free speech is one of our most cherished freedoms.

    Actually, I would argue that freedom of speech as we understand it only really exists in the USA and, to a lesser extent, NZ, when it comes to the major English speaking countries.  It certainly does not exist in the UK (their laws against offensive speech are aggresively policed) and many Australian states have very strong restrictions on it by way of anti-vilification laws.  

    Canada also has some major restrictions, although they seem to be under attack at the moment, so that may change.

    Of course, the Europeans also heavily restrict freedom of speech, but it has never really been much of a commitment in Europe anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    If Europeans heavily restrict freedom of speach, why was it a French newspaper that published cartoons this week, and a Danish one that did it a few years ago? IIRC most of the newspapers in the English speaking world were too chicken shit to publish them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    As I understand the imminent lawless action test in the US, it is not enough that an expression encourage some lawless action at some indefinite future time. Moreover, an expression must be likely to incite such lawlessness.

    Correct.

    In a basic sense the term “incite” simply means encouragement to action. But is this itself sufficient?

    It most definitely can be

    If I have a banner that reads “kill all murderers” am I inciting violence or engaging in political advocacy for the death penalty?

    You could indeed be considered to be inciting violence with such a statement.  Were you to say that murderers should subject to capital punishment (even if you said ‘executed’ or ‘hanged’) then you would be making a political statement.

    In this context the banner, especially in the context of a political protest, would surely not meet the test and can be taken in the context of a political argument.

    I disagree with that. It is a general call to behead those who insult Islam, made within a context of world wide protests that have included at least 4 murders.  There was violence even at the protest at which the banner was displayed, and it was more than likely that the people holding such banners (there was more than one in the photographs) knew of the violence around the world and were aware that there could be violence at their protest.  I would very much disagree that in such a situation the sign was in fact political speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Thank you, Falafulu.
    I expect DPF to match Not PC by publishing the cartoons as his tribute to freedom of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kowtow (8,485 comments) says:

    This from the UK is interesting on the subject of free speech ,insult ,intent etc

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9264748/Why-should-an-insult-be-against-the-law.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Geeze Pete George,

    We are at war with these people. Not the ‘Muslim world’ but Al Qaeda and radical islam. These attacks on the embassy’s were not isolated riots, they are military actions.

    Also please enlighten how we need to act better, dhimmi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    Sonny – as far as I’m aware, we are not at war with any people in New Zealand.

    If holding a sign that might incite violance be illegal what about publishing cartoons that at least as likely to incite violence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Are not teachers in Christchurch teaching children about protest ? – they will grow up making good Greenpeace members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    This leftist is a bigger fan than most people of free speech, and all the wonderful institutions that English-speaking democracy has developed in the last 200 years that mean our way of life here & now is the best thing anyone has ever had, anywhere.

    However I have to admit that when it comes to Muslims and any talk of beheadings whatsoever I think there needs to be some long, hard thinking about where you place the limits and what you are prepared to turn the other cheek to… and what you might be better off just immediately deporting out of your country for your own sake.

    Some stuff, even pretty outrageous stuff like talk of beheadings, where you may think “no, that’s just loose words, surely?” might not be merely words at all.

    For those that are up for it, here’s exhibit A:
    A delightful video that appears to be a muslim child – not holding up a sign advocating beheading people – but actually cutting someone’s head off with a big knife while a bunch of helpful people hold him down and video it.
    http://www.ajuaa.com/lookme/play.php?vid=153
    Not safe for work, not safe for anything at all really, just horrific… in fact, maybe don’t watch it at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,666) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 11:32 am

    markblackham at 11:22 am

    Hold on – it’s okay for the west to be offensive, but not muslims? Everyone is free to have a go in my book. The kid’s and banner was pretty ugly, as was the sentiment behind the muslim protest but there’s a world of difference between saying stuff and doing it.

    Fair point.

    No its not. The key difference is that when we are offended we hold the individual responsible for the offending to account, and if their group/country supports and defends their defending then and only then do we hold the defined group collectively responsible. We don’t go and burn any efigys, we dont go burning any flags and we certainly dont go and murder the nearest diplomat!

    What the Muslims have done is hold an entire country (I would even expand that to an entire skin colour) responsible for the actions of a few individuals.

    Imagine the outcry if we used the same logic and punished all Muslims for the behavior of the few in Sydney, Libya and Egypt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    F E Smith,

    I disagree with that. It is a general call to behead those who insult Islam, made within a context of world wide protests that have included at least 4 murders. There was violence even at the protest at which the banner was displayed…

    True, but did one have any causal link with the other? Was the violence targeting people who had insulted Islam or was it more generally directed at institutions of authority as is the case in many other protests? That is to say that could one reasonably conclude that that statement incited that violence. Moreover, those who had insulted Islam, and who provoked the protest, were so far removed from the protest that it’s hard to reasonably believe that the speech is likely to cause violence against those whom the banner may have been referring to.

    Ultimately I don’t think any violence resulted from the banner and I don’t think it was likely to. The murder of people a world away would seem to have no causal link with a banner in Australia and the protest itself would have been violent in any case in my opinion.

    Moreover, whilst literally it is a call to violence, I’m not sure it serves much purpose to place too much emphasis on the literal meaning of the words used since more ambiguous and creative forms of expression can serve the same purpose. Ultimately the expression must be interpreted beyond the specific words, images etc. chosen to reveal its true intent and effect in its specific context. I generally give the benefit of any doubt to the individual unless there is a clear case to be made showing either a direct causal link between the speech and specific acts of violence or that imminent violence was only averted due to suppression of the speech by authorities.

    That said, I would have no problem with authorities exercising caution in such circumstances are requiring those banners to be put down. But I would agree with any criminal prosecution without more evidence showing a link between such banners and actual, or otherwise imminent, acts of violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,666) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    Sonny – as far as I’m aware, we are not at war with any people in New Zealand.

    No you needn’t worry about it Pete. Others will do your fighting and dying for you.

    If holding a sign that might incite violance be illegal what about publishing cartoons that at least as likely to incite violence?

    I wouldn’t have thought the sign was illegal but I defer to others on that issue. Either way the bearers of the sign are open to the free speech of criticism.

    And the cartoons are so obviously in a different category, there is no direct threat or instruction of harm to another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. smttc (752 comments) says:

    PG, what utter rot you talk sometimes. A publisher of cartoons is not responsible if some religous zealot decides to use it as a pretext to incite violence.

    Me thinks you spend too much time pissing around on blogs. Maybe you should spend more time away from your keyboard in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Weihana –

    Moreover, whilst literally it is a call to violence, I’m not sure it serves much purpose to place too much emphasis on the literal meaning of the words used since more ambiguous and creative forms of expression can serve the same purpose. Ultimately the expression must be interpreted beyond the specific words, images etc. chosen to reveal its true intent and effect in its specific context. I generally give the benefit of any doubt to the individual unless there is a clear case to be made showing either a direct causal link between the speech and specific acts of violence or that imminent violence was only averted due to suppression of the speech by authorities.

    Absolutely correct and a fair point…

    But again, I fear that when the speaker is Muslim and the subject is ritual beheadings, it might pay to NOT take it with as much of a grain of salt as you otherwise might…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    If holding a sign that might incite violance be illegal what about publishing cartoons that at least as likely to incite violence?

    I think the distinction is the intent to urge on and encourage something. There is a difference between offending someone and that person reacting violently and directly encouraging someone to be violent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    1:32

    oops… meant to say I wouldn’t agree with criminal prosecution without more…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wreck1080 (3,917 comments) says:

    Muslims are crazy! The ones that aren’t , probably tacitly approve of the crazy ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    And the cartoons are so obviously in a different category, there is no direct threat or instruction of harm to another.

    Sounds like trying to squirm out of responsibility for what could be seen as deliberate provocation.

    If someone holds a beheading sign alone in a forest is any harm done?
    If someone takes a photo of the sign and spreads it around the world…

    (I’m totally against the beheading sign, but it raises some interesting issues)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Sounds like trying to squirm out of responsibility for what could be seen as deliberate provocation.
    (I’m totally against the beheading sign, but it raises some interesting issues)

    P.G., are you sure your middlename isn’t Neville? Appeaser to the last fibre of your body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    I’m not a bash-everyone-in-case-er but that doesn’t mean I’m an appeaser.

    What do you suggest is done Manolo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    I think there’s a very real possibility that the beheading signs were given to children by people who revel in the opportunity to provoke a negative attitude towards Muslim Australians. I’m not saying I’m certain it happened, but I think the possibility is real enough to consider, especially considering some Aussie white supremacists have claimed to have done so. (http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/1554/chrismerrett.png)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    Resurrect the crusades, invade all Muslim countries and enforce conversion from Islam?

    Ban Islam from New Zealand? Nul citizenship and deport anyone who doesn’t convert?

    I hear a lot of tough non-appeasing talk, but I don’t hear of any reasonable solutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    I suggest that troublemakers are shipped back to the middle east.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    RRM: That video is truly revolting…and even if the actual beheading is faked – and I dont think it is – it is an appalling indictment on “the religion of peace”…

    Ezett: that extract you quote hits the nail right on the head…just as a statue of the Virgin Mary can be shoved in a condom and be defended as “art” by the silly liberals, but CARTOONS of the holy prophet FFS can even argued by the stupid as justification for killing …

    Would one of our liberal co-commenters care to answer the question I posed here a few hours ago…If we allow large numbers of Muslims into NZ, why would we NOT expect exactly the same kind of turmoil as is currently happening in Australia?

    Please…it’s Friday arvo, I am due for a laugh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Like I said, let them in but they leave their bullshit at the door.
    If they come to live in Australia (or NZ) because their country is a shithole and ours isn’t, that’s fine, but don’t turn our good country into the fucked up one they left.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,670) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Resurrect the crusades, invade all Muslim countries and enforce conversion from Islam?

    Ban Islam from New Zealand? Nul citizenship and deport anyone who doesn’t convert?

    I hear a lot of tough non-appeasing talk, but I don’t hear of any reasonable solutions.

    What a narrow minded moron you are Pete.

    Yours is not the only alternative, and none of those solutions have come from you. It’s like you have difficulty firing up all your brain cells.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    And btw Pete my solution is to kill or capture all those responsible for the embassy attacks.

    Peace comes from overwhelming force of arms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    If holding a sign that might incite violance be illegal what about publishing cartoons that at least as likely to incite violence?

    You make the mistake of describing the cartoons as being likely to incite violence.  They don’t.  To incite is to urge or persuade a cause of action.  The sign ‘behead those who insult the prophet’ incites, because it urges a course of violent action.  What the cartoons do is provoke, rather than incite, and provocative speech is still allowable.   When we are talking about provocative speech, we as a society presume that listeners (or readers) will exercise self-control and not break the law, even if they disagree with what is being said.

    So there is actually quite a large difference between incitment to violence and provocative political speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    PG
    You will never find reasonable solutions when dealing with unreasonable people.
    Australia is in serious trouble..Anyone who has read anything in recent times re the march of islam in the UK will be aware of the org., Hizb ut-Tahrir..When middle eastern govts had these people locked up , the UK let them flourish in their Unis..Aussie has also let them flourish..In 2007 aware people were calling for them to be banned in Australia…..Recently Gillard said they are not on our terrorism list..Why not? Her govt has allowed their firebrand Brit preacher to weave his magic in Aussie..Taji Mustafa.. despite calls for his visa to be revoked. Is this org in NZ? At Ak uni? Will NZ blindly follow the same path? Scarey.
    At the same time as letting this monster in to have more than his share of free speech , lefties are calling for Geert Wilders to be denied entry..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    The muslim population of Sydney is just under 4%

    The muslim population of New Zealand is just over 1% and rising fast.

    Events in Sydney prove the internationally recognised truth that muslims in a western society
    are guaranteed to cause problems above 3%

    Do we, ‘ embrace and celebrate ‘ our muslims and more than Australia does theirs ?
    i doubt it. So why are problems now begining for Australia ? Is Australia so much different than NZ ?

    And still some here maintain that NZ will be different than any other western country. How naive can you be ?

    The writing is on the international wall for us all to see.

    And still we import more and more muslims.

    The fact that international experience shows that second and third generation muslim immigrants are the most zealous
    and extreme about their religion show just how stupid are comments such as those from tvb @ 11.15

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I agree, joana and bereal.
    Western governments *around the world* seem to be wilfully blind to the utter stupidity of allowing Muslims into the West.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tom hunter (4,844 comments) says:

    Very well argued FES – but it’s both sad and frightening that the difference between provoke and incite has to be explained in such an precise manner to a supposedly educated member of Western society. FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi @ 12.38pm. :) :)

    You are soooo right.
    Alas – we get a left leaning wanker of an editor who wouldn’t recognise news if kicked him in the cods.
    He’s so busy trying to create news and fostering his lefty contributors he wouldn’t dream of employing an investigative journo’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    So…no silly liberals keen to explain to me why, if we end up with the same % of Muslims in our society as Australia, we won’t get the same sort of problems….didn’t think so….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    David Garrett:

    This set of photos is a heartening antidote to that beheading video:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/09/13/protests-against-libyan-embassy-attacks-photos.html#introSlide

    Hence I don’t think banning Muslim immigration is the answer. I think seriously criminalising death threats (esp. Jihadist death threats) is the go…

    Not all muslims are Jihadists, but any Jihadists in New Zealand should be jailed or deported.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    Reason #957 for any sane country to seeek energy independence. Then stop Muslim immigration completely.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. sbk (312 comments) says:

    Just a point…while free speech may be the issue …the West is not alone….Thailand,Phillipines,India,North Africa,Russia,China,etc…where ever…there is trouble…it cant be all the “Wests” fault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    RRM: But how do we identify the jihadis? It not like they are going to be silly enough to tick “yes” to a question – like that incredibly stupid one on the US form about communists – which says “Are you now or have you ever been a member of a fundamentalist organization?”

    As 9/11 showed, the jihadis are quite capable of shaving off their beards, drinking alchohol and engaging in fornication while waiting for their entry to paradise and the 72 virgins which await them there…Far simpler to learn that Muslims and Western countries are incompatible, and cease all such immigration fortwith…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    David Garrett –

    Why stop there? Look at Anders Breivik…. why would we want to take the risk of letting Norwegians into our country?

    The only difference between him and Jihadists is – you and I can’t remember (or even pronounce) their names…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Thanks, Tom Hunter.

    it’s both sad and frightening that the difference between provoke and incite has to be explained in such an precise manner to a supposedly educated member of Western society

    I couldn’t agree more. And even worse that many in government also don’t seem to understand the difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    David Garrett –

    Sorry, and in response to your actual question…

    We could wait for individuals to commit an actual crime, before we condemn them, since that is the standard that we as a civilised country set when judging any other citizens and their behaviour…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    I’m aware there’s a bit of a difference between inciting and provoking, but whether you encourage someone to be violent or you try to inflame knowing that as a result people may be violent the end result is be the same.

    If the intention is to stir up emotions and try to initiate violence what’s the difference between inciting and provoking? Surely intent is important.

    It’s quite feasible the beheading sign was designed to shock, or maybe just plain stupid, with no intent of any action as a result.

    Publishing cartoons at a time of widespread unrest knowing they could provoke more unrest is at the very least irresponsible and stupid.

    I’m not aware of any violence resulting from the kid holding the sign. The chances of violent repercussions are far more likely with the cartoon publishing.

    I don’t know the specifics of law but in the world of cause and effect any victims won’t be bothering with the finer points of synonyms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    If the intention is to stir up emotions and try to initiate violence what’s the difference between inciting and provoking? Surely intent is important.

    If violent reaction is all that is necessary to censor disagreeable speech then the entire concept of free speech is worthless.

    Moreover, how you get violent intent from the drawing of cartoons is beyond me. I do not believe that any media outlet that publishes the cartoons intends for anyone to get hurt, rather they are published as a matter of principle, expressing their sincerely held belief that insult to religion is not a justification for violence and that violent reactions will not silence them into submission.

    Muslims are not mindless beasts who are unable to control their behaviour. The publishing of material offensive to their beliefs in no way is an encouragement to be violent, in fact it is the exact opposite: that people must take responsibility for their own actions and that any violence is entirely the fault of those who engage in it and those who support it and it is entirely unjustified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    But Pete that violence is not due to the difference of the material, it is due to the difference of the viewer.

    Would a cartoon mocking jesus be more dangerous than a placard saying ‘behead all muslims’?

    Although personally I don’t have a problem with the sign, but I think the people waving it are dickheads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Pete George,
    But who provoked the Sam Bacile to make the film and Charlie Hebdo to publish the cartoons?
    And who provoked them?
    And so on and so on …

    How far back to you go?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    RRM (5,417) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    David Garrett –

    Why stop there? Look at Anders Breivik…. why would we want to take the risk of letting Norwegians into our country?

    The only difference between him and Jihadists is – you and I can’t remember (or even pronounce) their names…

    That’s a stupid extrapolation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @Weihana – spot-on! Well said!
    As you say – “….they are published as a matter of principle, expressing their sincerely held belief that insult to religion is not a justification for violence and that violent reactions will not silence them into submission.”
    Yep – couldn’t have put it better myself!

    I see the movie and the cartoons as “a line in the sand”.
    The West is saying – “This is it, Muslims. Either you choose to become civilised, or you fight us. Your choice.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    That’s a stupid extrapolation

    No, it’s not.

    Either we have western civilisation, where we treat people like free individuals and we judge individuals on their deeds, OR we can have summary justice by violent mob, and if you’re American (any American) then you’re a legitimate target… which seems to be what the Jihadists in Libya are advocating.

    I like what Western civilisation is doing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    RRM: Anders Brevik is a lone lunatic (in the colloquial sense of the word) jihadis are organized and there are hundreds of thousands of them

    Wait until they commit crime? Prevention is always better than cure my boy…so much less blood…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. tom hunter (4,844 comments) says:

    If violent reaction is all that is necessary to censor disagreeable speech then the entire concept of free speech is worthless.

    A couple of weeks ago or so, Kiwiblog’s dumbest commentator, Hamnida, burbled on about Cuba and North Korea and elicited a couple of responses from myself and solid lefty Psycho Milt:

    Hamnida (719) Says:
    August 26th, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    I am not promoting North Korea.

    I think there are issues with the current and former Leaders.

    =============
    tom hunter (3,510) Says:
    August 26th, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    I think there are issues with the current and former Leaders.

    Thump ….

    Thump ….

    Thump ….

    My head on the keyboard or someone hitting Hamnida’s skull with a wet beet – readers, you choose!
    ==============
    Psycho Milt (821) Says:
    August 26th, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Hey, give him a break – there are issues with the current and former leaders. You know, the issues with them running a particularly insane Stalinist dictatorship. I think we can all recognise if we’re objective about it that there might be some things about murderous totalitarianism that are sub-optimal.

    ========
    Hamnida (719) Says:
    August 26th, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    I can’t see what the big deal is – I simply acknowledged there are issues with North Korean leadership. I think 99% of the world would agree with that.

    I was reminded of this as I watch Weihana and FES toil away in a similarly futile manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Charlie Hebdo put a kind of “declaration on their website (and I think it’s **great!**). Here’s the original (and a translation of it) –

    “Piens un mahomet glorieux, tu meurs.
    Dessine un mahomet rigolo, tu meurs.
    Gribouille un mahomet ignoble, tu meurs.
    Réalise un film de merde sur mahomet, tu meurs.
    Tu résistes à la terreur religieuse, tu meurs.
    Tu lèches le cul aux intégristes, tu meurs.
    Prends un obscurantiste pour un abruti, tu meurs.
    Essaie de débattre avec un obscurantiste, tu meurs.
    Il n’y a rien à négocier avec les fascistes.
    La liberté de nous marrer sans aucune retenue,
    la loi nous la donnait déjà, la violence systématique
    des extrémistes nous la donne aussi.
    Merci, bande de cons. Charb”

    “Paint a glorious Muhammad, you die.
    Draw a funny Muhammad, you die.
    Scribble an ignoble Muhammad, you die.
    Make a sh!t film on Muhammad, you die.
    You resist religious terror, you die.
    You lick the ass of fundamentalists, you die.
    Take an obscurantist for a jerk, you die.
    Try to grapple with an obscurantist, you die.
    There is nothing to negotiate with fascists.
    Freedom to laugh without restraint,
    the law already gave us that, the systematic violence
    of extremists also gives it to us.
    Thank you, assholes. [signed] Charb”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    If violent reaction is all that is necessary to censor disagreeable speech then the entire concept of free speech is worthless.

    Best statement of the day.

    That’s a stupid extrapolation

    No, it’s not.

    Yes it is.  Anders Brevik was one person from a nation that has no previous history of providing terrorists/engaging in terrorist activity.  Islam has, unfortunately, a very well deserved reputation for providing many terrorists and adherents who show an ongoing disregard for human life, even when their terms are met in full.  As David G pointed out, the jihadis are organised, Brevik was one person.  And the jihadis have a wide support base throughout the Islamic world, whereas Brevik has been met with mostly universal condemnation.

    There is a world of difference between the two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. grumpy (261 comments) says:

    so much for “radical minority”, don’t let them in here.

    http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1184

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    The release of the anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims, has right-wing Jewish fingerprints all over it. The film’s issuance and the failure of YouTube to pull it down in the same manner that a number of anti-Semitic videos have been blocked, is but one of many operations planned by Netanyahu and his sayanim and hasbara intelligence and psychological warfare operatives around the world to: 1) create a crisis to help defeat US President Barack Obama and install Netanyahu’s old Boston Consulting Group friend Mitt Romney in the White House; 2) seek the deaths of American government or civilians abroad to portray Muslims as killers of Americans (the deaths of four US diplomatic personnel in Benghazi, Libya, including US ambassador Christopher Stevens, as a result of protests over the film, was “mission accomplished” for Netanyahu); and 3) play into the fears of right-wing Americans who believe President Obama is a secret Muslim, a maneuver that saw Romney call Obama’s reaction to the deaths of the four US embassy personnel in Benghazi weak…

    …The plot to embarrass Obama was revealed in a secretly taped video of Romney speaking to a group of wealthy and mainly Jewish Florida donors earlier this year. Romney’s comments provide ironclad proof of Netanyahu’s political connections to the Romney campaign. Romney told donors, “I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world, I didn’t realize it. These guys in the US – the Karl Rove equivalents – they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So, they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I’d tell them to you, but I’d have to shoot you.”

    Obama is a muslim, BTW. But that just makes the above even more likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    No man is an island,
    Entire of itself.
    Each is a piece of the continent,
    A part of the main.
    If a clod be washed away by the sea,
    Europe is the less.
    As well as if a promontory were.
    As well as if a manor of thine own
    Or of thine friend’s were.
    Each man’s death diminishes me,
    For I am involved in mankind.
    Therefore, send not to know
    For whom the bell tolls,
    It tolls for thee.

    John Donne

    Some people above could benefit from reading that, I thought to myself.

    We’re being led into a war.

    By propaganda, lies and manufactured incidents.

    How come some don’t see this?

    It’s so obvious.

    Muslims are human first, Muslims second.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Which islamic countries have you lived in Reid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    ‘Some people above could benefit from reading that, I thought to myself.’

    I don’t want to get all technical on you Reid when you’re feeling melancholy or moved , but who else could you possibly think to if not yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Have any of you posters on here today, questioned the Minister for Immigration on this subject ??

    Why do we have so many Immigrants lining up for Burger Flipping type of jobs when we really want Qualified people..

    Why are so many STUDENTS becoming PR’ed..

    They have only just received their qualifications..

    They have NO experience..

    Why are so many NEWLY PR’ed ( 5-7 year ) Immigrants turning up in court for fraud.. ??

    Me personally .. I will not do business with any one from the Sub- Continent With out some very damned good references..
    Even then watching their every move..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @Reid says – “Muslims are human first, Muslims second.”

    Uhh…. Muslims are Muslim first, everything else second.
    Look at the countless interviews with Muslims around the world.
    You will often see them asked “Do you think of yourself primarily as a British/American/whatever citizen, or primarily a Muslim?”
    The answer – *invariably* – is – “primarily a Muslim”.

    Muslims *never* have ANY allegiance to a Western country that they move to.
    Their SOLE allegiance is to their make-believe “god” Allah.

    Even IF we were being “led into a war”, as Reid claims – SO WHAT?
    *Some things are WORTH fighting for.*
    Freedom of speech comes into that category.

    I’m sure that Reid thinks that Muslims see US as “humans”.
    He would be WRONG.
    The Koran itself has a quote in it equating non-Muslims with “pigs and monkeys”. Nice “religion”, ay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    We are being lead into a war Read says..

    Israel has just undertaken a surprise call up of ALL reservists. And an exercise at the Golan Heights..

    America is conducting along with over 20 other countries.. An exercise of of Iran.. With probably more fire power than the entire WW11..

    It is supposed to end 27/9/12

    Read !!.. Is this Leading us into a war ??.. Or asking That Small man in Iran to allow the UN to see what he is up to with his Nuclear programme..

    I work with Iranians.. You can not tell me what to do.. You are not my manager !!..

    Just Basic company worries..

    Hey !!.. Do not run around Forkhoists movimg machinery and trucks !!..

    I do not care if I run over one of those idiots a day.. Just the NZ judicial system.. I am wrong for killing him..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Which islamic countries have you lived in Reid?

    None joana. It’s not required. Heard of humans? Apparently we all operate within the same bandwidth, regardless of politics or culture or geography. If you can’t tune into the bandwidth, that’s not my problem. But don’t assume that others can’t.

    Muslims are Muslim first, everything else second.

    Do you know that thor, or are you merely inferring that from a superficial understanding – the outside looking in.

    I’m sure that Reid thinks that Muslims see US as “humans”…The Koran itself has a quote in it equating non-Muslims with “pigs and monkeys”

    Yes I know that thor but so what? The Bible has lessons on leprosy cures but you don’t see we Christians taking that literally today, do you. (Possibly in the deep-South US Bible Belt I admit, those guys are nuts aren’t they, but you don’t see the rest of us Christians doing that, do you.)

    So make a leap of logic thor. Recognise that possibly, just maybe, the Muslims aren’t some amorphous blob of fanatical killers but alternately, maybe, just maybe, it’s slightly possible that in fact, Muslims are, as a group, just like Christians are. Some fanatical nutters, sure. But they’re in the teeny tiny minority, just like some mentals in the Southern Bible Belt are. And so what if all the rest have all sorts of weird opinions and views that you don’t understand. So what? Isn’t that just like the Christian communities you live with and interact with on a daily basis here in NZ or wherever you live?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I did not need to ask Reid..it is more than obvious..No on here has said that muslims are not human..Nazis were human, the Japanese were human ..every other invading army was human..all dictators were /are human..Whether they are human or not is not the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Hey Reid,

    while you work yourself up into a selfrighteous state of indignation.

    try and answer the question i posed for you the other night.

    What part of the trailer for Innocence of muslims is factualy incorrect ?

    What is your problem ?

    If you cannot point to where it is innacurate…. just shut the F. U.

    Heard of,, ‘Put up or shut up.’

    Well then… Go for it Reid, or STFU

    Now is your chance.

    Got anything ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Whether they are human or not is not the issue

    Well that’s great joana and in this case I just wonder why how come a lot of posts above have appeared to lump every single Muslim together as some sort of fanatic brigade when we all know that’s precisely what the Nazis, the Japanese and every invading army throughout history did, which as you say is incorrect and wrong, and yet that’s what seems some are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    Reid: Genuine question…this “teeny minority” thaing that all of you who defend the religion of peace tell us about so frequently…
    Some stats please…Lets take Iran..how many Muslims are there in that country? (the neareast million will do) About how many regularly appear in the streets chanting “death to America” or whatever? (the nearest 10,000 will do)

    If you are more familiar with a different country, feel free to substitute the stats for that country instead…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    How big is that ‘they’ joana? How many people are you sweeping over with that one word ‘they?’

    If you need any clues you could ask thor, he knows everything we need to know because he heard or watched 1000s of interviews.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    What part of the trailer for Innocence of muslims is factualy incorrect ?

    It’s factually incorrect bereal in the same way this is factually incorrect. Both clips were broadcast for precisely the same purpose, just in different times and the question you need to answer for yourself is, do you seriously want to be counted as a person who approved of either of those?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Now with the best of respect to you Reid.

    What an infantile response.

    Typical of your type.

    1 Trying to argue two wrongs make a right.
    2 Answering a question with a question.

    Effing pathetic mate.
    You need to get out more babe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    hang on guys while I nuke a bag of popcorn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Lets take Iran..how many Muslims are there in that country? (the neareast million will do) About how many regularly appear in the streets chanting “death to America” or whatever? (the nearest 10,000 will do)

    Iran’s around 170 million David. Who knows how many are Muslim. Let’s just say all of them, despite we both know Christians, Jews and Muslims all live together in that country, quite peaceably. But let’s say all of them.

    About how many regularly appear in the streets chanting “death to America” or whatever?

    Again David I don’t know, but again for argument’s sake let’s say all 170 million of them do that, every single day, non-stop, no work, no play, just complete, utter chanting of “death to America.”

    And yet, and yet, Iran hasn’t invaded ANYONE since the 1700’s. No-one. How many countries has the US invaded since then?

    Of course, that’s different isn’t it David. The US are the good guys. They’ve brought peace and democracy everywhere they’ve been, haven’t they. Of course they have. Everyone knows that. Get with the program. Crikey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Reid’s love of Muslims is as inexplicable as his hatred of the United States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    The release of the anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims, has right-wing Jewish fingerprints all over it.

    A little risky, in this conspiracy scheme, that the film was uploaded to the Internet at least six months ago. Could have gone off at any time, really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Reid
    more and more pathetic
    In fact pathetic and patheticer

    What’s with you self haters ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Reid – the link in you 9:17 comment doesn’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Manolo my love of history and reality superseded my Westernised blinkers over a decade ago.

    I used to have them just like you do. I’m glad the scales dropped from my eyes.

    And I don’t hate the US and I don’t love Muslims. I merely recognise that neither of those peoples are responsible for what their leaders do and by leaders I don’t mean just publicly known elected ones but the ones who operate in the shadows and if you don’t think those exist on both sides then you’re incredibly ignorant and naive.

    chiz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwsySS2EzgU

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Why does the West bother fucking around with the Middle East, which has predominantly been the center of conflict since year dot. Nothing to do with oil, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    I did have a list of the sovereign states that the usa has fucked with it was at least 30 and probably more

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Griff, IIRC the USA has invaded or taken military action against more sovereign states than any other nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Why does the West bother fucking around with the Middle East, which has predominantly been the center of conflict since year dot. Nothing to do with oil, is it?

    Yes and no, noskire. Afghanistan has amazing mineral deposits, Iran’s oil makes the rest of the ME look sick. We’re talking tens of trillions in Afghanistan and hundreds of trillions in Iran. But the main reason is, believe it or not, Israel. It’s all about rebuilding the temple on the Dome of the Rock. And that’s not because I’m a Christian, that’s because I know why these bastards are doing what they’re doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Saved European asses in ww1, saved euro asses in ww2, saved Aussie, nz and many other pacific asses in ww2; prevented europe and pacific being over run eevery year since ww2 just by being there. yes the us has intervened on many occasions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    It’s done a lot of good Kevin. It’s also done a lot of bad. Like I said, look to the leadership. Since WWII, they’ve been doing an execrable job with a few sterling exceptions but they’ve been rare and fleeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Kevin, without downplaying the impact the US had on both world wars last century, they were initially reluctant to commit on either occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yep, us has made many mistakes as,all counties. Most are not the ones it is trendy to think of though. Their worst one of course, and for which I think they share a lot of collective guilt is not intervening earlier in ww2. I think the guilt over that has caused them to intervene too early in some cases since ww2.

    Other notable mistakes were their too early and dogmatic support for independence at all cost especially in Africa and we’ve seen what a disaster that’s,turned out to be. The unofficial support from factions within their community for the shambles in northern Ireland for decades was also deplorable.

    But on the whole, post war,they were in a very difficult international situation.

    The real interesting one,will be when china feels taiwans time has come. Shudder. No simple Falklands solution there….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,670) Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Resurrect the crusades, invade all Muslim countries and enforce conversion from Islam?

    Ban Islam from New Zealand? Nul citizenship and deport anyone who doesn’t convert?

    I hear a lot of tough non-appeasing talk, but I don’t hear of any reasonable solutions.

    Well scrapping visa-free entry for Saudis into New Zealand might be a start (that was a really dumb policy introduced by Clark, just like all the other really dumb policies)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Interesting debate.

    China is about to become the world’s biggest economy. Already has the largest military, although arguably not as well-trained and equipped as many Western forces. Yet not a huge target for Islamic extremists, but still has some problems.

    So do Al Qaeda target the US and other Western countries because of their support of Israel? Or are they just expressing the underlying resentment of being fucked with by Western nations for centuries? Just asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    If we were a strong country with strong law and order there would be no problem. Just treat anyone who commits,violent crime the same way, even if they claim it’s for a cause. But because of national and labour we are a weak divided country on the verge of falling off the bottom of the OECD ladder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Neither. Islamic political elite use these excuses to cement their own power base by shamelessly using the ignorant in their population. They find mentally ill people to do their bombing. They don’t do it themselves. Just as our politicians promote dysfunction to secure their power. It’s all about money and power not principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Twinkletoes (53 comments) says:

    Reid – you must be so embarrassed now everyone knows that the film was made by expat Egyptian Copts, but don’t let that stop your antisemitism from showing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    noskire, the isalmists don’t get chinese cable tv. that is why they ignore them. and the chinese would brutalise the islamists if they provoked them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Great comments Kevin..
    Reid ..Somewhere you said ..I don’t know” well that’s true for sure..If you haven’t lived in an islamic country all you are doing is theorizing..your views have no weight , no credibility. And as for various religions living peacefully in Iran, where do you get your information from? Do you know any Iranians living in NZ? They would soon set you straight..Muslims have been invading other countries since the get go..When I was livng in SEAsia, a humble people were brutally invaded with the usual convert or lose your head mantra..After the terror and the slaughter , there were mass circumcisions..of the children..1,500 at a time..Just because you did not read this in the Dom Post does not mean it did not happen..The people who this happened to were were very humble , PEACEFUL Catholics..No one came to their aid.
    Sonny Blount…The Chinese do have problems with violent muslims..the Uighurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. MH (757 comments) says:

    Anders Brevik or Breivik may not have been a Quisling but Norway is not altogether squeaky clean……had over 2000 jews before the war(II) and carelessly had none at the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. MH (757 comments) says:

    more Muzlin cloth tolerance we all must defend to the death,maybe the only muslims here are gay?

    Seminars aiming to help teachers and parents spot signs of homosexuality in children are being offered by the Malaysian government.
    In a move reflecting a rise in intolerance towards homosexuality in Malaysia, organised events are offering ‘advice’ on spotting tell-tale signs of being gay in youngsters.
    Ten seminars have so far been organised by the Teachers Foundation of Malaysia – and the last one attracted about 1,500 attendees, signalling an increase in religious conservatism in the Muslim majority nation.
    Rising intolerance of homosexuality: Parents and teachers in Malaysia are being advised to look for ‘tell-tale’ signs that children might be gay (file photo)
    An official said: ‘It is a multi-religious and multicultural (event), after all, all religions are basically against that type of behaviour.’
    Malaysia’s federal government announced back in March that it was working to curb the ‘problem’ of homosexuality, especially among Muslims who account for more than 60 per cent of the country’s 29 million population.

    An advice sheet handed out to attendees at a recent seminar said signs of homosexuality in boys might include preferences for tight, light-coloured clothes and large handbags.
    It also said signs of homosexuality in girls was less obvious, claiming that lesbians have ‘no affection for men and like to hang out and sleep in the company of women’, according to reports in the Malaysian media.
    Kuala Lumpur, the capital city of Malaysia. Both oral and gay sex is frowned upon in the Muslim-majority natiom
    Both oral and gay sex is frowned upon in Malaysia, with many viewing them as against the order of nature. Under civil law, offenders – male and female – can be jailed for up to 20 years, caned or fined.
    Although actual prosecutions are rare, the former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has twice been tried for sodomy, in cases he called political conspiracies.
    He spent six years in jail, but the courts have since cleared him on appeal or dropped charges for lack of evidence.
    In the face of widespread criticism, a camp for ‘effeminate’ boys was set up on the east coast state of Terengganu last year to show them how to become men.
    The latest seminar for the teachers and parents was run by deputy education minister Puad Zarkashi, his office confirmed.
    Zarkashi wasn’t immediately available for comment but national news agency Bernama quoted him as saying that being able to identify the signs will help contain the spread of the unhealthy lifestyle among the young, especially students.
    He was quoted as saying: ‘Youths are easily influenced by websites and blogs relating to LGBT groups.
    ‘This can also spread among their friends. We are worried that this happens during schooling time.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote