“Aucklander” decided to get involved by writing to the Australian authorities. Here’s his email to us:
Dear Dymphna and Baron,
I think you’re doing a great job and I check on Gates of Vienna most days. Perhaps soon that will be an actionable offence… Anyway, at the risk of offending someone, here is my view, and you’re welcome to print it if it’s of interest.
I think your idea re using these laws is right — hit them right back, show them just how stupid their laws are. For example, English law on not offending religious feelings: atheists should definitely start some complaints about offensive religious texts that discriminate against non-believers. We should not be put off even if we don’t approve of speech-restrictive laws in the first place. It’s about setting an example.
In the case of the Australian law, they could just be talking about racism, not opposition to religious ideology, so I thought I’d check. Here’s my letter to Human Rights Australia, sent via their complaints webpage. If you’re interested, I’ll send the answer, if I get one.
And his email to the human rights people:
Dear HR Australia,
I am interested in how you deal with cyber-sexism. Since you are actively against cyber-racism, why are you not also be dealing with cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia? As a feminist and supporter of homosexual friends I am deeply offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals.
While I am opposed to racism (in fact there is absolutely no scientific proof that different ‘races’ exist), there has been a tendency lately to claim that opposition to certain religious doctrines is ‘racist’. It is clearly not, as religion is a doctrine and not a genetic trait.
Please give me your definition of ‘race’ and of ‘racism’, and assure me that religious doctrines are absolutely not considered racial characteristics, so that if someone opposes a religious doctrine or practice online, they will not be committing ‘race crimes’ in your book.
If you are wondering why I am asking this question from New Zealand: I have gay friends in Australia and am concerned that under your laws, if they dared to comment online on anti-gay religious doctrines, they could be deemed offensive and ‘racist’! The same could apply to women opposing sexist religious doctrines publicly online.
As a secularist, I am also interested to know how you ensure that enforcing people’s human rights regarding religion does not interfere with others’ rights to secularism and atheism? If it is someone’s right to state that non-believers are somehow inferior (easily found in many religious texts and frequently stated publicly, online, by believers), would an atheist have the same right to call a believer inferior? If not, why not?
Many Regards,
Aucklander
I’ll be interested to see if they respond, and if so, what they say.
One thing to remember is this: the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) considers “Islamophobia” a form of racism. The OIC carries an enormous amount of clout at the UN, and is pushing hard to pass a binding resolution which requires all member states to criminalize “defamation of religions” as a form of racism.
The OIC has been presenting this resolution every year since 1999, and is getting closer and closer to success. This year President Obama has indicated his support for it.
So watch out, Australia! Criticism of Islam may soon become a form of racism, and will thus be actionable.
You’ve been warned.
7 comments:
Great letter! Can't wait to read the squirmy reply to that one.
"In fact there is absolutely no scientific proof that different ‘races’ exist."
Actually, you hardly need any "scientific proof" that cats exist, that rain exists, that automobiles exist or that races exist.
But if you really insist that you need one, there are plenty of scientific proofs around that, of course, what you see is what exists, and that races do exist.
Talk of the blindingly obvious.
I can't understand why "Islamophobia" (Is that a reconized psychological problem?) can be considered "racism." I mean, I hate the religion and am abhorred at the thought of anyone converting to it. I don't care what race they are. If an Irishman becomes a Mohammetan, it doesn't make him an Arab, does it? So how can being against a religion be racist?
FG,
You have to meet some Muslim converts of Western descent. Islam really does warp their thinking, and it doesn't take long for them to adopt the intense hatred and disdain of the ummah for Western civilization.
Father Gregory wrote,
"So how can being against a religion be racist?"
Do you really think the Left doesn't know the difference between a religion and a race?
Do you really think that the only thing we have to do is point that out to them, and they'll admit they're wrong, and we will win?
Why do so many right liberals think that if the lefties just knew random factoid X, they'd come to their senses and give the whole thing up?
Forgive my frankness, Father, but that I cannot understand.
The Left, unlike Aucklander, know perfectly well what a race is and what a religion is. And they know perfectly well that Islam is the former and not the latter.
They also know, unlike Aucklander, that if their great vision of a throbbing, unified , coffee-colored mass formerly known as mankind is ever to come into existence, neither race nor religion can matter.
And that's exactly why they pretend that it's equally bad to discriminate on the basis of race and religion. And that's exactly why they'll borrow the "moral authority" of "anti-racism" to squash "islamophobic" resistance by the native sons of Europe.
As I re-read Father Gregory's comment, it occurred to me that he might not be a right liberal after all, but was just expressing puzzlement at Leftist doublethink. If so, I apologize for the inaccurate depiction.
Aucklander, however, made his right-liberalism pretty clear in his e-mail and therefore my challenge to him still stands.
Given that Australia flipped off the UN on Kyoto, and in general has been pretty steadfast in standing by Isreal (regardless of ALP or Coalition being in office), I would expect the intelligentsia of Newtown and Randwick to make a fuss and Parliament to just wait for it to pass.
Though, should that become actionable, I think that the High Court might be the one sticking its finger up.
And if I can also refer to history, it was attempts by the West to push disarmament through the League of Nations that caused it to fly off into oblivion. This may very well serve the same purpose for the UN.
We shall see.
Post a Comment