These books are written and distributed to the end of subverting Western states and aiding Muslim violence against them, with the ultimate goal of establishing Islamic states in their place. If that isn't sedition, I don't know is. "Muslim 'books of hate' can be sold," from the Daily Telegraph, with thanks to J.J.:
BOOKS of hate promoting suicide bombings, anti-Australian conspiracies and racism can be freely sold in the Muslim community after a ruling that they don't breach sedition laws.The material, found by The Daily Telegraph in bookstores in the Sydney suburbs of Lakemba and Auburn last year, was judged by federal authorities not to incite violence in the first known test of anti-terrorism laws.
Police Commissioner Ken Moroney said last night he felt uneasy about the continuing threat posed by such material remaining on the streets.
But he said NSW Police would abide by the "qualified and considered legal opinion" offered by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and Australian Federal Police.
The ruling comes despite British police establishing strong links between three of the suicide bombers involved in the July 7 London blasts and an Islamic bookstore in Leeds.
There have also been links in Australia between the suburbs where these books were on sale and alleged terrorist plots here.
One of the books, Defence of the Muslim Lands, carried an endorsement from Osama bin Laden on its back cover and promoted "wiring up one's body" with explosives for "martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations".
That one was written by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, cofounder of Al-Qaeda.
The Criminal West, written by Australian Muslim Omar Hassan, claimed to be called Australian was something to be ashamed of and Western culture is the culture of wolves, injustice and racism.It also claims Australian police are rapists who bash young boys and spoke of a conspiracy involving politicians to turn young Muslims into drug addicts.
The Ideological Attack claims there was a barbaric onslaught against Muslims by Jews, Christians and atheists.
AFP spokeswoman Rebecca Goddard said the Commonwealth DPP found no offence had been committed under last year's anti-terrorism Bill....
Goddard, that's insane. And Australia will be paying the price for this, as more and more young Muslims read these books and then act upon their teachings.
On the positive side, next time the Muslims attack freedom of the press, someone can whip out one of their hate books and say, "If we're allowing this, we're certainly allowing anti-Muhammad cartoons." Freedom of the press doesn't go one way.
Ironic, when in the same country, they are banning Bibles.
In the spirit of free speech and free practice of religion, these vile books can be sold, yet non-Muslim free speech and free practice of religion is squelched. Hypocrisy
At the end of the day, they're revealing themselves and their evil ideaology to the entire infidel world. But is the infidel world taking any notice? Judging by the politically-correct "Islam is a religion of peace" refrain we listen to all too often, obviously not. We never learn, regardless of how many atrocities take place in the name of their devil-God Allah. We still stupidly blame every atrocity that we fall victim to upon ourselves. And that is all down to our unwillingness to learn the unpalatable truth of what drives Jihad - the contents of the Sira, hadith and Koran, and our media-enforced PC-ness which prevents criticism and denouncement of Islam as a savage, neanderthal, civilization destroying death cult, and there's no better breeding ground for Jihadists than a world where they believe they can wipe out our civilization, dominate the planet and impose brutal Sharia law on all of us, perhaps in the next century or so, and unless we eradicate political correctness, the culture of self-blame it inculcates, and our ignorance and total lack of knowledge of what we face and study carefully the horrific consequences of losing for our civilization, we'll never start to get on top of the greatest and potentially the most destructive threat to face our civilization in 300 or more years.
One man's "hate" is another man's Koran.
Australia seems schizophrenic, at best.
And aiming for a a fugue state.
Auslamia.
It's some small comfort to know that corrupt judges do not only exist in America. Here is where our Ivy League brilliants were able to figure out that a corporate HQ amounts to a public use. Duh.
Intellectual fraud = Marxist objective.
Islam interpreted = dhimmi abjective.
I've been puzzled with the liberal tendency to tolerate other religions except Christianity, here is why I'm thinking this so. First of all, the liberals are not these open minded completely rational people existing out of any historical context. They have a set of ideas that originated in the Enlightenment movement in Europe. I think they can be considered to be the dominant ideology in modern western secular states. However, the previous dominant ideology in western states was christianity. Now since the liberals are the ones writing the history, the descriptions of western states under christianity and the transformation to secularism is not entirely objective in that it was not an entirely non-violent and un-coerced process. The liberal standard goes like this, hundreds of years Europe groaned under christianity in the Dark Ages, then liberals explained that christianity is bad and showed them the great new enlightenment ideas, and everybody decided to jettison christianity and accept the new ideas, except that b*** Mary Antoinette who said let them eat cake. But this is a simplification of what really happened. What happened was there was a period of persuasion, the Enlightenment, which however did not persuade everybody, certainly not a majority of the ruling class, and even large segments of the ruled remained very attached to Christianity, because there are good things about christianity and bad aspects of enlightenment ideas. So what followed and was actually necessary to replace the old belief with the new, was the French revolution, where thousands of people were killed in the name of Fraternity, Liberty and Equality. Now, this initiated a long process of give and take, reform and reaction, persuasion and violence in which secularism in Europe gradually replaced christianity as the main governmental ideology in Euro countries. So I think this - christianity as the dominant ideology was not entirely bad nor is secularism entirely good, and both groups have a history of using coercion and violence against competitors and especially each other. Basically when the new dominant ideology, secular liberalism, sees the former dominant ideology, christianity, making a comeback, it kicks into French revolution Jacobin mode, it doesn't feel similarly threatened by Islam (though it should feel more threatened) so it doesn't. America is a special case - the founders in my opinion combined the best from Christianity and Enlightenment ideas in organizing American society, but militant anti-christian liberalism has gradually seeped in from Europe overtime.
The liberal standard goes like this, hundreds of years Europe groaned under christianity in the Dark Ages, then liberals explained that christianity is bad and showed them the great new enlightenment ideas...
The begining of the jihad onslaught into Europe's underbelly is suspiciously coincident with the Dark Ages.
So maybe, just maybe, way back when Europe was groaning and flopping big-time they were suffering under the weight to that child sex abuser Mohammed and overall world visionary, the Holy Prophet and Allah's Apostle [sic].
How many faces can evil have, actually? Wake up, Aussies!
Is there a way that politicians of all Infidel countries - Australia, US, Israel, India, Britain, Russia, Sweden, et al can all be packed and deported to Saudi Arabia? Send them to the Saudis with a cover letter stating that they have all "reverted" to Islam (after all, no evidence is required - see all the stories about girls being stolen and converted), and that the practice of Islam should be enforced among them. If they don't do what local helpless Muslims have to do - pray 5 times a day, attend mosques on Fridays, et al, subject them to beatings. Better still, enslave the whole lot of them.
And let's then start afresh in each of these countries.
Sure, no one can be that. However, it is probably to the point that they would like to be.
This is off-topic for the board, and there is a danger of treading on people's toes, too ... However, it might be worth offering a few thoughts. Consider this statement of a typically conservative position:
It is not irrational to have such loyalties but those loyalties cannot be "rationalized" in negotiable terms. Note, for example, when people marry they don't make a promise but a vow. If this is a "contract" then it is a contract to have a non-contractual relationship - for richer, for poorer, etc. In the modern West there is a tendency to try to remake all institutions in contractual terms. To return to my previous example, people even make pre-nuptial agreements, where they agree to terms for separation if the arrangement no longer suits.
You could loosely describe this contractarian view of things as "liberal", and it's not, of course, a bad thing in all cases. It's how commerce works, for example. However, it is debatable, to say the least, whether all human relations can be seen in this way.
It seems to me that many modern people would like to slough off all such particular loyalties, because they experience them as unjustified (because they can't, indeed, be justified in "rational" terms) and hence feel them as a burden. A similar process would be at work in the case of Christianity. Religious beliefs are not justified rationally, i.e., by argument. Indeed, Kant said he had "made way for the claims of faith" when he offered arguments that many philosophers consider destroy the basis of the traditional arguments for God's existence.
The point I'd like to make is that it's the surrounding order that such a person is estranged from.
Others people's loyalties, other people's beliefs, other people's religions are, however, no problem, because they are not experienced as a burden on the self to whom they mean nothing. And they are certainly not bound up with memories of sitting in a draughty chapel when you wanted to do something else and so on.
At least, I suspect this is part of the reason in some cases.
Still, some foolish conservatives - one of President Bush's advisors, for a start - imagine that Islam respects "family values". So liberals aren't the only ones who have unfortunate opinions and preconceptions pulling them in unhelpful directions.
This goes beyond any reasonable definition of free speech. Works, such as those described, are merely the tinder for violent incitement.
While admitting that I would love to see the removal of such material from circulation I can't help but agree with this decision. I know this is going to be an unpopular view and I do understand that they will persuade some of those with violent tendancies to act upon them but limiting freedom of expression does not seem the way to go. Books don't kill people...
I believe there should be almost no restrictions on the press and that advocating almost anything should be allowed to be printed and sold (The only exceptions would be libelous defamation and explicit child pornography).
So the best way to fight these kind of sick publications is with the truth. We should also publish these books (they may have to be translated) and highlight the most violent and horrible passages, pointing out that this is the true face of Islam.
As for the two Indian Christian pastors that are now political prisoners in Australia, these materials can be used in a legal brief demanding their immediate release on the grounds that these Muslim books prove the pastors simply told the truth.
Also, every time the Australian Muslim Council takes any action, or issues any statement, have people there to show these books and ask the Australian Muslim Council how they can claim to be anything other than a terrorist hate group when their own reading material is so explicit.
The publication of these books is a good thing in showing the reality of what Islam truly is!
Western societies seem to be determined to convert the great unwashed into hordes of impuissant lemmings as we rush headlong into a looming disaster. And as usual our federal politicians have that stupid vacant look on their faces when trying to explain this tosh.
We introduced a plethora of legislation designed to eradicate racism and our leaders seriously try to tell us that some of these books don't offend any of those particular laws. This is nothing but lapsus comicus.
As I keep saying we have some of the most inept, deplorable, lazy and corrupt politicians money can buy. Will someone take them off our hands PLEASE.
Angrymuppet
"Books don't kill people" only works when the offended people don't respond violently. Everybody remembers how the Danish cartoons resulted in rioting and deaths in Islamic countries. It's true that the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the rioters, rather than the cartoonists, but those who argued against the publication of the cartoons in various papers were doing just that.
Now, you have books that promote suicide bombings, racism and other Islamic hatred of infidels, and that's allowed to go uncensored. It's one thing to argue whether censorship should exist at all, period. However, in a framework where censorship does exist (can one easily buy Mein Kamph in Melbourne?), the correct question to ask is the one that's being asked i.e. why are these books allowed to be in circulation?
Imagine somebody writing a book that listed all the ruthless acts of Muslims starting with Mohammed and going right down to the latest riot in Indonesia, and then used that to advocate the genocide of all Muslims. Do you think such a book would not be banned? The question may be somewhat academic, since such a book would probably have trouble finding a publisher, but if it did, do you think it would get on the shelves?
In the case of Muslim books, there are both publishers based in Islamic countries, as well as Dhimmi publishers who would satisfy them. Is that all it should take to get these on the shelves?
Some of the -very liberal- posters above are in favor of selling hateful Islamic literature. In a perfect world one would agree, but in a world (and in a country) where people are dragged through the courts for reading from the Koran I beg to differ.
So far no Australian publication has printed the cartoons either. Hard to say whether they voluntarily censored the publication or if they received instructions from the government not to, in which case they may have printed them to spite the government. Cowardice is cowardice, Dhimmi's will be both; apologists and useful idiots for the spread of Islam.
While 'how-to-make-your-bomb' literature is available on the net I don't think such books circulate freely. The Islamic ideology is not much different from bomb-making material, and we are obliged to protect ourselves by all means possible. The idiocy of the Rebecca-Goddards must be held in contempt.
Provoslavni - somebody has already tried that. His name was Daniel Scot. Not only did he lose his court case via a corrupt judge, he is around $500,000 poorer for the experience.
Until the everyday infidels revolt (and here in Australia we have nothing to revolt with - water pistols arn't as good as firearms) - well nothing will happen, other than Islamisization.
Infidel Pride, you are right in that there needs to be a balance and that freedom of expression only becomes a problem when those offended become violent. But I see these as two separate issues.
There should be the freedom for people to publish without restrictions but that does not mean that they have the freedom to behave in the manner described. If someone attempts to follow through with some action because they have been incited to it than we already have (and have had for some time) legislation in please to deal with their actions and those responsible for inciting violence.
As far as Mein Kampf, I would be surprised if it was not available. I don't think that it should be on the best seller list but it should be available for historical reference.
Provoslavni, The 2 pastors were not jailed. Fines and public apologies (that I believe they refused to give...)
Let them publish. It's better to have this stuff out in the open, where it can be attacked, than underground, eating away at society like a cancer. I strongly suspect that one reason why more Muslims are open to the Gospel these days may be because they can actually see their inherited religion for what it is.
BTW, for a good discussion about the enlightenment, Gerturde Himmelfarb put out a fairly good book recently. She notes that "enlightenment" meant different things in continental Europe and the Anglophone world. While she's a bit confused about some of the nuances of Christian theology, her interpretation of the enlightenment seems mostly on target.
"The Criminal West, written by Australian Muslim Omar Hassan, claimed to be called Australian was something to be ashamed of and Western culture is the culture of wolves, injustice and racism."
-- from the article above
Omar Hassan needn't worry. No one considers him an Australian in any sense that matters. And he should be deported to a country that is not part of the criminal West, because he clearly is a threat to the laws and institutions of Australia, and to the security of those Australians who share, who helped create, what he consideres to be a "culture of wolves, injustice and racism." If there is no law available to remove such people from Australia, or to punish them for such obvious sedition and incitement to violence, then there should be.
Pass such a law. Soon.
Without getting into a deep theological discussion of Biblical principals, the reason the Bible is banned no matter what the country is that it acts as a restriction on man's baser instincts.
With the Bible hanging around, when we do something reprehensible, the Bible is there in an accusatory role.
It's like the wifebeater whose wife never complains, just looks at him with those pain-filled and accusing eyes. This earns her even more beatings.
As human beings we don't want anything to remind us that, despite what Charley Darwin said about man evolving for the better, we get worse by the day.
Australia is a Commonwealth of States, or put another way, a federation of States.
The notorious Pastor Scott (presently under appeal) involves a law passed in the State of Victoria that concerned itself with religious vilification.
This ruling regarding sedition involves the breach of otherwise of a Federal statute.
The two situations cannot really be compared, except insofar as they both truly show how far the rot has set in.
The sedition ruling does illustrate that in Australia, there is effectively no such thing as sedition.
In a time of war, a singularly curious, and worrying fact.
It probably also serves to show that Australia, like other western nations, seems determined to fight this war solely through the criminal courts.
What a farce.
In my previous post, I of course intended to write:
"The notorious Pastor Scott case".
Apologies to the good Pastor.
A point that might be made, is that there is nothing to prevent any infidel - presumably a religious one - from utilising the Victorian laws to attempt to show that they felt vilified by these books if they are on sale in the State of Victoria.
Whether the relevant Government complaints body would bend over backwards to assist such a person, as they did for the complainants in the Pastor Scott case - to the extent that one staff member organised for muslim candidates all too willing to be offended to attend Pastor Scott's lecture - would be another question altogether.
Sofia,
The problem with Canada is exactly as I oppose... the government has the authority to restrict speech. The reason for this lack of freedom, and therefore of Canada's (and Australia's and the UK's) increasing Islamization is an unarmed population.
Fortunately, something can be done about Canada. There are thousands of places where there are no border stations on the US-Canadian border: Minnesota, North Dakota, the Iroquis rez, etc. We Americans can meet hundreds of right-thinking Canadians at these places on the border and supply you all with the means to defend yourselves, M-16s, AK-47s, Glocks, Uzis etc.
As the Beach Boys sang: "The pen is mightier than the sword, but it's no match for a gun!"
There is no excuse for Australia not to ban and prosecute. There is no equivalent to the American or NZ Bill of Rights. They can legislate such laws without inpunity.
Also, I'm not sure about which states have religious vilification laws (the sort that were used against Pastor Daniel Scot), but they can and should be used against proprietors of these books. It would eb a reversal of trends, but would fit the statute. Alas, I doubt whether the political will exists.
TH
Oh, someone has already made that point...
"Sedition" during wartime is not protected speech, for those free speech purists who would have had, by their loose logic, Mein Kampf distributed to Nazi POW's.
This is as clear an example of "sedition" as you could hope for in print form.
And what does Australia decide to do in response: cut its own national security throat to appear "reasonable" and "accomodating" to those who will only use their "open-mindedness" to finish the job and behead them.
"Bis peccare in bello non licet."
[To blunder twice in war is not permitted.]
Haidon, the only state with religious vilification laws is Victoria. The 'Catch the Fire Ministries' hearing opened a Pandora's box and the other states and territories have held off from introducing the same type of legislation. I think the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) will be next to introduce the same type of legislation as it is very trendy. How trendy? One of the Chief Minister's advisors was caught painting anti-John Howard slogans in public places. He went to trial and was found guilty but the Chief Minister had nothing but praise for this law breaker. This bloke still has a job in the CM's office.
As you can see if it is anti-JH or anti-Australian our trendy left wing state governments will give it a run.
On the positive side, this has been all over the news today and this evening. Tracy Grimshaw on 'A Current Affair' said 'you have to wonder when hate literature is allowed under freedom of speech and the Bible is banned under political corectness' or similar words. Keysar Trad, Sydney's resident spokesman for islamic extremism appeared on the evening news supporting the decision to allow these books under 'freedom of speech'. Hope the media remembers this next time he wants something banned or someone silenced for offending the religion of peace and tolerance. I believe Keysar lives off the Aussie infidel taxpayer due to stress cause by islamophobia or some lame excuse that that. Can you live like this back in his native Lebanon ? I think not !
Well, when a previous Prime Minister of Australia is scheduled to speak at the Denmark 'Islamophobia' Conference,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20554_Denmark_Islamophobia_Conference&only
16:40 17:00 Hon Bob Hawke-Former Prime Minister Australia
I get the feeling we are in the Twilight Zone.
Surely, our only hope is God...people are too corrupt these days.
This is very silly. Mein Kampf is here on the bookshelves. Once you start banning books, where do you stop? Wrong way, chaps, go back.
This is very silly. Mein Kampf is here on the bookshelves. Once you start banning books, where do you stop? Wrong way, chaps, go back.
Posted by: Brett_McS at May 15, 2006 06:09 AM
Free speech is one thing..incitement to violence and sedition is another.
You are right though, instead of banning seditious Islamic literature inciting violence, we should go right to the source and ban Islam.
I think it all goes back to one very simplistic thought process. A secular person can not think like a devout Muslim, especially in Europe, they think that these people who would be educated, developed and given individual rights etc. would soon make their own mind up and just eject the baggage of their former culture.
They are so arrogant in this belief that they will even allow this culture to set up its support structures to prevent this from happaning, believing that the people will see the benefits of secularism and this will over-ride their cultures conditioning regardless and there is some success in this, but not enough.
However they have not catered for the conditioning that installs fear in young children of hell, that fear that nags away, that doubt, what if there really is a hell.
They have got stuck within the dogma of their secular thought thinking that others can see the benefit, they do not understand or want to understand the things that bind Muslims to their faith, they can not understand that, so they make extreme and fatal errors of judgement.
Free speech is one thing..incitement to violence and sedition is another.
Yes, but, as noted in the article, the books were checked against sedition laws and found to be OK. It's a non-story.
I actually view this revelation with some optimism. It is not all bad news.
Firstly, it is not "news" at all. Many Internet commentators (Joseph Farah, Daniel Pipes, et. al.) have been reporting on the availability of this literature for many years. Nothing new here folks.
And it's not all bad. Here we find that the MSM have stumbled upon this supposedly startling revelation. This is the MSM (or an Ozi sub-branch thereof), not an Internet blogger preaching to the choir.
When I was driving home from work today, this was the major topic for discussion on talk-back radio. Politicians, being the simple folk that they are, pay attention to talk back radio.
That this evil "literature" exists we all know, take heart that this has become mainstream knowledge, and I am pleased with that.
To Mike W. above posting about former PM Bob Hawke, you may find him a more complex character than you imagine. Bob Hawke has a passionate love for Israel and the Jewish people, I won't pencil him down in my "Disappointing Dhimmi" log book yet.
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=410
Ozi_bloke, exactly right. This story shows how closely these people are being watched. And true, Bob is as almost as passionate about Israel as he is about his coif - one of the few Aussie politicians up to US standard in that department.
"I won't pencil him down in my "Disappointing Dhimmi" log book yet."
Yes, of course, we must see the transcript of his speech before we do that.
Somehow though, I doubt we will see an honest appraisal of Islam.
In my opinion, former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke is, as he described an elderly gentleman once whom he disagreed with, a "silly old bugger", speaking at such a forum.
"Australia: Muslim 'books of hate' can be sold"
Which one, the Koran?
If I started selling books in the middle of Sydney advocating such violence against the Muslim world, I wonder what the government would do to me.
I just re-read my response to Sofia from really late last night and I might have been unclear. I am NOT advocating that anyone break Canadian law, only pointing out that the Jihadists are probably bringing weapons and people across the US-Canadian border in both directions.
Canada would be far safer if everone up north did have the right to keep and bear arms. Look at Australia, where since they've confiscated weapons, the country had had an explosion of crime as well as Islamization.
Here in Melbournistan, Mein Kampf has been available for the last 20 years that I know of.
As for our *cough*laws?*cough*
The actual legislation can be found here, and my favourite parts are:
Epmhasis added by me.
As you can see, it is an amazingly nebulous piece of legislation. I'm a long way from being a lawyer, but my reading of this segment is that if I wish to discuss something that may offend someone walking by, I had best be doing it under the Cone of Silence.
Even emailing a link to this site could be seen as religious vilification.
The law is a joke, and we all know it, but whether it will be repealed is another question, which will no doubt be answered in the negative.
Of course, from another perspective, somebody with less to lose than I have (children, job, that sort of thing), could also file a grievance over these books being available for sale to impressionable people. They are obviously offensive and contain obvious instances of vilification, so it would make for a challenging case.
Particularly if the case was found to be answerable. (Which is unikely, as any objection raised by an anglo/christian will be seen as persecution of non-anglo/non-christian minorities.)
L.Drummond