Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[Mugwump]

Criticism of Islam will not be tolerated.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/t ... 071f35c800

The trouble is not with the decision, which is arguably (only arguably) justified by the law as drafted : the problem is with the law itself. The intent was to prevent incitement to violence and gross humiliation of a racial or ethnic group, and all of us would support that. It was not drafted tightly enough so it can now be exploited to prevent free speech and debate on serious public policy issues. So go the liberties of a society that no longer understands the source of its freedoms.

[Pies4shaw]

[David]

Criticism of Islam will not be tolerated.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/t ... 071f35c800

This has nothing to do with criticism of Islam.

[Pies4shaw]

Now I'm near a laptop, rather than wrestling with a mobile 'phone, here's the link to the reasons for decision:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd ... 8/112.html

The key bit (with the references edited out so non-lawyers may, just possibly, find it less impenetrable than it otherwise might be) is:

"5.The Tribunal has power to dismiss a complaint before a final hearing "if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance" or "if the Tribunal is satisfied that for any other reason no further action should be taken"....

6.As a general proposition, a complaint should not be summarily dismissed except in the clearest of cases .... The respondents have the onus of establishing that the proceeding should be dismissed without a hearing. Any facts which [the plaintiff/complainant, in whatever the particular case is,] asserts, must be accepted for the purpose of the summary dismissal application...

7.The words "frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance" have been held to refer to the "insufficiency or to the absence of merit or factual basis for the allegations made in the complaint rather than to whether the complaint is one within the provisions of the Act at all"....

8.In [a widely-quoted Victorian Supreme Court appeal decision, a judge] stated that the term "misconceived" is commonly used by lawyers to mean "a misunderstanding of legal principle" and the term "lacking in substance" to mean "an untenable proposition of law or fact". ..."

The decision made was, in short, that the case brought by the complainant was not so obviously and legally hopeless that it should be cut off at the knees without going to "trial". It wasn't that the complainant is correct, merely that it is possible that, on the facts alleged, the complaint might succeed, so that the matter should be allowed to go (in the ordinary way) to final hearing.

[thesoretoothsayer]

ethnic Muslims

I personally see no cultural or national bond between a blue-eyed Bosnian computer programmer and a Sudanese goat herder.
This phrase is as spurious as saying "ethnic Catholic" or "ethnic Scientologist".

[Mugwump]

[HAL]

That was a long time ago.

[stui magpie]

Now I'm near a laptop, rather than wrestling with a mobile 'phone, here's the link to the reasons for decision:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd ... 8/112.html

The key bit (with the references edited out so non-lawyers may, just possibly, find it less impenetrable than it otherwise might be) is:

"5.The Tribunal has power to dismiss a complaint before a final hearing "if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance" or "if the Tribunal is satisfied that for any other reason no further action should be taken"....

6.As a general proposition, a complaint should not be summarily dismissed except in the clearest of cases .... The respondents have the onus of establishing that the proceeding should be dismissed without a hearing. Any facts which [the plaintiff/complainant, in whatever the particular case is,] asserts, must be accepted for the purpose of the summary dismissal application...

7.The words "frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance" have been held to refer to the "insufficiency or to the absence of merit or factual basis for the allegations made in the complaint rather than to whether the complaint is one within the provisions of the Act at all"....

8.In [a widely-quoted Victorian Supreme Court appeal decision, a judge] stated that the term "misconceived" is commonly used by lawyers to mean "a misunderstanding of legal principle" and the term "lacking in substance" to mean "an untenable proposition of law or fact". ..."

The decision made was, in short, that the case brought by the complainant was not so obviously and legally hopeless that it should be cut off at the knees without going to "trial". It wasn't that the complainant is correct, merely that it is possible that, on the facts alleged, the complaint might succeed, so that the matter should be allowed to go (in the ordinary way) to final hearing.

In other words, because the complaint is not clearly absolute bullshit, it should be heard so that a judge can determine the case. As you said, doesn't mean the case will be successful, just that there's no grounds for throwing it out before being heard.

[Skids]

[Pies4shaw]

Belgium 5, Tunisia 2.

[think positive]

Soccer score?

[watt price tully]

Belgium 5, Tunisia 2.

Very droll.

Five two what?

[Pies4shaw]

... 1, baby, 1 in 5, no one here gets out alive....

[Nick - Pie Man]

They're having a pretty quiet year so far. Muslim terrorism is so passe ..

[Wokko]

They're having a pretty quiet year so far. Muslim terrorism is so passe ..

https://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/ ... ?Yr=Last30

That's just the last 30 days. Our media doesn't like to report Muslims killing other Muslims.