There at it Again!

[post_hoc]

This is what i wrote at the start

"Banning the construction of a religious building is discriminatory, it is illegal (as it is in breach of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution) ignoring any real breaches of the anti-discrimination Act."

ie the Banning of the building of a mosque is Illegal

[Swans4ever]

[quote="pussycat"][quote="Xman"][quote="pussycat"]What is worse ? the banner or the people who don'y think it's racist???????????????

or the people who dont understand the difference between racial and religious vilification?

So one white parent and booing Adam Goodes isn't racism?
Spot the Ausie . a a err aah,

racist.

You are very confused let me spell it out.
Anglo Saxon boss denies Asian man a job because he's Asian = racist
Anglo Saxon Christian denies Anglo Saxon Muslim a job due to his faith = not racist, certainly intolerant and discrimination but not racist because he is not offering him the job because of his skin colour but the other persons beliefs. Whether you agree or disagree with the statement it doesn't make it racist. But its not really the question whether it is racist rather whether it was appropriate for it to be at a football game. Considering both the AFL uses the game as a platform to express their opinions maybe they have to expect contrary views to be expressed even if the majority disagree.

You are arguing semantics, one could use bigoted, one could claim vilification, but these are simply words to describe a larger subset of discrimination. Does it really matter if the term racism is used? It is all discrimination based on someone who is perceived to be different from yourself.

I find it more concerning that you are wanting to argue the point of racism rather than the actual despicable attitude of the people who unfurled the banner

The fact of the matter is that the Nth Melb cheer squad unfurled a banner in a prelim about refugees being allowed to stay, (and I am not suggesting it was offensive), no one objected, the AFL has used its games to promote political agendas, so you can't have it both ways, you can't claim freedom of speech to only hear what you want to hear. But to use the race card (which is a way of slandering a person legally it seems) must be the lowest way to get your point across. If pussy had said AFL fans were intolerant towards Muslims or discriminating towards Muslims his argument would have the same impact because we have a right to have different opinions aren't we. But he didn't and he used the term racist to vilify AFL fans, so how about the Aboriginal or Asian or Middle eastern fans who came to this country to escape persecution by Muslim's and support this sentiment - are they also racist??? No they aren't it's not semantics - by all means ban politically motivated banners but ban them all - that is my point. I take exception to use of the racist word just to garner support!

The argument is not one of free speech or of political slogans at sports events. In fact I think sports and politics have a long history and it can be very positive ie the Banning of Apartheid ear South African sporting teams had a massive impact.

Welcoming refugees is not discriminatory, it is not stifling anyone's 'freedoms' it is simply encouraging a country to abide by international law/agreements.

Banning the construction of a religious building is discriminatory, it is illegal (as it is in breach of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution) ignoring any real breaches of the anti-discrimination Act.

And your example of people who have fled persecution and voice their opinions, the answer is yes they are racist/discriminatory/bigoted because they are equating bad actions of one (group/person/country) with all people that share the same characteristics it is the actual example of racism.

1st Section 116 is a provision that binds the crown not an individual
116 says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.[1] and although we talk about rights aside from the Charter of human rights (Victorian act) there is no provision. Secondly you are missing my point I was neither condoning actions or condemning, the point I was making is if you are quite happy to let people express the sentiments you agree with you must be prepared to let those express the sentiments you don't agree with - that my friend is called a democracy. My example of others not of the Muslim faith but persecuted in other countries holding the same view is an illustration of the fact that it is not racism and not a request at validation. Lastly in this country we can express an opinion until it is against the law, that's the freedom we enjoy, they have not discriminated against anyone yet, maybe an ignorant or intolerant view, but reading the poster again it is not discriminating against ANYONE - they are demonstrating against the building of a mosque (a building). They have the same rights as you, I, Muslims, Buddhist etc etc have. ( And certainly no one has been prosecuted for holding signs saying "Behead whoever insults the prophet", so if anything it shows a double standard favouring Muslims). While your argument is well thought out on the surface is I'm sorry to say misplaced and wrong. I hope I have cleared up a few things so you don't keep labouring under a misunderstanding! it's not racist or even discriminating no matter how much you wish it to be!

Let me start by saying I am enjoying this discussion, it is refreshing that it is civil.

Section 116 binds the crown (of course it does that is what the constitution does) my point is
1) The crown is the only one who can make laws
2) They are calling for the prevention of a religious building, ie the only people that can rule on that are governments, therefore they are demanding the government break the law, hence why i brought into the argument Section 116.

The next point, having the right to express an opinion is not a defining notion of a democracy, it is freedom of speech, again it is semantics but only fair we both play the game.

They are not protesting against the building of 'A' Mosque, they are protesting against the building of all mosques, all buildings of worship for a particular religion based on bigoted, racist, xenophobic (what ever you wish to call it) views, which is discriminatory.

So it has nothing to do with not agreeing with them (which I don't, I think it is abhorrent) or wanting to stifle what they wish to say, the simple fact is what they wrote is illegal, therefore any comparisons with the North Richmond or Sydney FC "Refugees Welcome" Banner is meaningless. One is discriminatory the other is a legal politically charged message.

Now as far as I am aware, no one has been charged with holding up that banner as yet either? Just because someone hasn't been charged, doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Yes I am enjoying it too - I think we will eventually have to agree to disagree and maybe our debate is an example of the blurred lines.

1st s.116 only binds the Federal government and not state governments or even local municipalities - (and as the high court has not applied or used its power under 116 in the past it is arguable it has any power at all).

2nd I know of no law they have broken, if they had they would most certainly have been charged - therefore your argument would lose much of its appeal - signs that read behead those are implied threats with no specific target and again arguable if it even breaches the law - you just can't have it both ways - just because you are offended by a statement doesn't make it illegal to state (even if pure nonsense such in this case). The corner stone of all democracies aside from our right to vote is our right to speak out. It what makes us different from dictatorships, communists, religious states and facists, it is our right to express our concerns that provides our very living standards.

Furthermore if we start censoring viewpoints because they don't accord with our own we will stifle debate and lead to unintended persecution. Whilst I agree that their is abhorrent, I disagree that they should be censored given that there has been many protests on the other side that is allowed free range - you have to take the good with the bad.

Lastly you have not addressed my main point - if a person of that very race is saying they are against the building of mosques the same as others that are not it can't be racist. It is discriminating based on ones race not beliefs. If I believe there is no God - then I have a right to have that belief, the same if I believe my house will have parking restrictions or lowered property values or increased rates because of the building of a mosque. If it were a intravenous drug using centre or an abortion clinic or a methodome pharmacy it is the same thing. Just because it's one person saying I believe in a God makes it no more special or invalidates others beliefs.

This act occurred in Victoria didn't it? Which means it is under the Racial and RELIGIOUS intolerance Act. So yes the act takes into account that some intolerance is aimed at race and religion. Again you bring up disagreeing with A mosque, a singular in a specific location at a specific time. Then yes you do have a right to protest against that building, (just like if it was a church a school a shopping centre) But that banner was against Mosques as a place of worship in general so that argument of yours is moot.[/quote]

Yes there is that Act but what law did they break, there is no penalty or offence provisions and clearly states that it creates no civil or criminal liability other than stated in the act. It is a meaningless act. Further more it seperates the meaning of racist vilification from religious vilification and makes them seperate issues which is your whole point is they are one and the same thing isn't it, which therefore supports my position. Again they break no law, lastly it does say mosques in general and I agree it is aimed in a general context but again it is not saying ban the religion only its places of worship. While I agree with you in rejecting the UPF idea's (they are a bunch of loons and truck drivers who have a lot of conspiracy theories). My is the more notice you give them the more legitimacy you give them. The better policy is to not draw attention to their looney ideas - the AFL neither sponsored of agrees with their position and by not commenting it has largely blown over down here with everyone seeing them for what they are. But lastly stopping them will also stop legitimate statements.[/quote]

The point I made right at the start is you are arguing SEMANTICS, bloody hell you do know what i mean don't you. The term racism was USED to describe a general vilification.

By banning the place of worship you are by all intents and purposes banning the religion. Hence their demand is one that would be BREAKING the law.[/quote]

What law?? Using the label racist is PC term used to stifle debate on issues, by using this words someone can immediately claim some moral ascendency, but the fact of the matter it is not racist. Using that term is only to start the argument with a cheap shot. It's not semantics, their not banning their place of worship but stopping new ones being built there is a difference. Like I keep saying if you permit statements that you agree with being made at football grounds don't get upset if someone has opinions you don't agree with.

[Xman]

kumbaya brothers.

Bah, perfect opportunity to rip into the AFL and esp collingwood with eddie and you guys decide to have a lovein.

Not worth the effort, you guys are a disgrace to the fight club.

someone needs a hug