TMSTKSBK;683741 said:
@HR: People that conciously refuse to obey the law while seeking to replace it with other law are known as traitors. Or rebels. Your choice.
If laws are being broken, why haven't the "traitors" been arrested?
After all, Australia has a system of laws used to govern its citizenry. It surely includes laws to act against individuals who refuse to obey the law, and/or seek to replace it with other law. The law of the country defines what a "traitor" or a "rebel" is and the proper legal methods of dealing with those individuals.
If Australia has a true democracy, and the criminal justice system is working, then the system should take care of those who are breaking the law.
Australia is in no way required to betray its sovereignty by allowing these yahoos to set up their own system of law.
Wow. That was quite a leap. I don't think I recall ever advocating that Australia "betray their sovereignty" or "allow them to set up their own system of law".
What I said was that under a democracy the citizens have the right to free speech and their own beliefs. Until they have broken a law they aren't guilty of anything. Once they have broken a law, there is a criminal justice system in place to enforce the law. Simple.
That's really what it boils down to. It's a simple affirmation of the law of the land in sum totum by Australia.
So the law of the land for Australian citizens is "if you don't think how I think, leave?"
In my mind, turning what is essentially a criminal issue into a "Muslim" issue only helps the cause of the extemists by playing into their "christians vs. muslims" rhetoric and driving people to their cause.
Why is this so controversial? If this was Christians instead of Muslims, you'd all be like "Well, they deserved it anyway...". But, since it's Muslims you're all freaking out about hurting someone's feelings. Pansies.
Based on what I read in this thread, the inference is that the government wants to regulate what certain individuals say and believe. It basically classifies a segment of Australian citizens who have not broken any laws as "extremists". It also makes the assumption that Islamic beliefs are in opposition to the law.
If people are breaking the law, by all means, arrest them immediately. That is why the law exists. You don't need to apply any other label aside from "criminal".
But if they have broken laws, then why have they not already been arrested? The answer is that they probably haven't broken any laws, but they are verbalizing an unpopular viewpoint.
When the government talks about targetting a segment of its population who haven't broken any laws and stifling their free speech, than that is not a democracy. The right to free speech is designed to protect unpopular views.
You see "Christians" and "Muslims". I see "People". Under a democracy, ALL of the citizens enjoy equal rights and due process under the law. Not just the "christians" or the "muslims". Not just the ones with popular viewpoints and opinions. ALL of them.
Throw away democracy and our rights as citizens and you have allowed the extremists to win.
It is *necessary* for peaceful cohabitation that immigrants assimilate a portion of their host culture. If the immigrants truly want to make a difference outside their enclaves, this generally means learning some of the host country's primary language, and some of its history. Immigrants that just want to set up their own country again inside a host country are not welcome to do so. The laws of the host country now apply, not their country of origin's laws.
I'm not aware of any immigrants that have set up their own country inside someone else's country. At least not without overthrowing the government.