The whole purpose of the EU Experiment  was to avoid the repetition of the wars that have plagued Europe over the centuries.  The wars happened because Europe has numerous disparate people with different social, cultural and religious beliefs living in close proximity competing for resources, Having a borderless Europe was imagined to be the way forward for different people to mix and develop "understanding" of one and another,  and ultimately create a homogenous continent and thus an end wars.

Unfortunately it fucked up because they naively believed that the social, cultural and religious differences would not matter or would even be replaced by new societies that bridged the differences, as people's knowledge and experiences with the other would show them that "we're not all that different after all".

Yeah, right.

Humans are tribal in nature. It's a large part of why we are on this forum in the first place as a sense of belonging to a football club or national team is part of that. 

It's a never ending battle to ensure that such divisions never become too deep or hate-driven. The only way to do that is to understand what fuels these sentiments (ignorance and fear) and combat it through education and reasoned debate.

The whole left and right thing is part of the problem. We're herding animals and we inherently see people not in our herd as sub-human and inferior. This makes crimes like the terrorist attack happen. It's also behind a lot of anti-social behavior. If you blanketly label 50% of the population as your ideological enemies, even when there's likely plenty of overlap in beliefs then that's a big problem.

We have to somehow see each other as human beings, that's why it's important to focus on the victims and not the terrorist. You can have multiple countries living together in relative harmony. It's not hard, you just need empathy and respect from all sides.

Captain Haddock, I dont know who you are but thank you for such an articulate, thorough and well reasoned response.

I used to work in counter terrorism for the Feds a decade back and studied this stuff intensively at uni and so have watched with despair the politicised responses to each attack ( from perpetrators from both sides of the ideological spectrum) but you have articulated my despair better than just about any other commentator even in the media. You are a very wise man in difficult times.

Sorry mate, using Trump as an example isn’t ”speaking in generalities”.  If you’re going to speak in generalities you have to speak generally, rather than isolating specific figures on the Right and then pathetically claiming you spoke generally.  

I typed out a big long response and thought fuck it.  You're just not worth it.

There are lunatics on both sides Rusty but I there's obviously no point talking to you.  The very first sentence of your reply is a flat out lie. 

I specifically spoke in generalities.  (I did use Trump as an example because he is by far the most high profile squawker when it comes to examples of what is being discussed above.)

When I was in high school a teacher told the class that rather than viewing the political left right spectrum as a line, it should be viewed as a circle. I am not sure this is true but it seems when you go super far too the right or super far too the left you end up in the same place. Islam is the same, if you go to its extremes you end up in the same place. If you take Christianity to certain extremes you can end up in the same place as well. 
This place is a place where the cause is made so important that something must be done to further its cause, something that is inexcusable, something that should never happen, killing humans. THIS IS NEVER JUSTIFIED. 

The problem is you only pose the question to those on the Right. Why can't you be magnanimous to admit there's an extremist element on your own side?  Why is that famous respected people and politicians can go around willy nilly calling for the President to be assassinated, or for the White House to be blown up, or for the public to rise up and overthrow the government using violence, or Antifa can go around assaulting and spitting and destroying private property, and there's virtually no public outrage or consequences?  Far from being condemned these people are hailed as heroes in their own little echo chamber communities. 

That was the essence of Trump's remark on Charlottsville, there had been wrongdoing and bad behaviour on both sides for far too long and as mainstream media had failed to hold to hold extremists on the left to account it was left to the President to pick up the slack.  If the Left are serious about stamping out extremism they first need to look in their own backyard and reflect on how they might be contributing to the problem.  

The worst thing for me about last weeks' attack is that it was carried out on unarmed civilians in a place of worship. A place that was sacred to them, away from the troubles of the world (regardless of what you think of Islam). Yet even there, they weren't safe. It wasn't just the people in the mosque who were shot, but civilians out on the street. Like other people have said, this happened in a small nation with a population less than the state of Victoria where they haven't seen a massacre close to this before in their history- while having more lax firearm laws than Australia's.

But now in the aftermath, the concern for me is the hysteria and the lack of discourse I've observed. People have a right to be concerned about terrorism and a right to be concerned about their national identity and the preservation of their culture and extremism (regardless of what banner it comes under). Yet last week has proven horseshoe theory correct, once again:

When an Islamic extremist commits an act of terror, many on the Right publicly express sympathy for the victims, while secretly glad that it gives them an excuse further voice their anti-Islam, anti-immigration agenda. Meanwhile when we see an act of terror like last week committed by a white far-Right extremist, many on the Left publicly express sympathy for the victims, while secretly happy because it allows them to voice their anti-West, anti free-speech agenda. When an Islamic extremist commits an act of terror and the Right politiscise it by saying "THIS is why we have to ban Muslim immigration", the Left quickly engage in whatboutism by citing the domestic violence rates in our country or the amount of murders committed by white men. And as we've seen this past week, people on the Left are politiscising this massacre by saying "THIS is why any concern about immigration or preserving Western society is a Nazi dog-whistle and needs to be shut down!", meanwhile people like Fraser Anning deflect with "Yeah but but but Islamic extremism" when the bodies are still warm.

The irony is that the far-Right terrorist in Christchurch and your typical Islamic terrorist are actually quite similar: disenfranchised, radicalised young men who are concerned about a perceived attack on their culture and hate the degradation of their society- to the point they think killing a whole lot of innocent people is the best way to do something about it because they believe it makes them a martyr, a hero.

Extremism in this form is a cancer on our society, it goes without saying. And regardless of who does the killing, nobody should be trying to excuse them or deflect from the issue at hand, just because other people on your "team" are doing the same.  Things like our immigration policy, national identity and national security ARE a big deal to me- but motherfuckers like this and Fraser Anning instead makee it harder for me to say "Hey, I'm actually concerned about these issues" without people straight away thinking "Uh-oh he must be one of these Far-Right extremists who wants to nuke brown people off the face of the Earth!" or some stupid shit. I'm not one to virtue signal online, but ethnicity has never affected who I've worked alongside, collaborated with or befriended. 

Extremism (whether based on religion, race or politics) ruins it for everybody. They make it harder to have a rational, level-headed discussion about issues that people care deeply about without it descending into an emotive-laden argument based on hysterical caricatures and ignorant stereotypes. Even if I disagree with what you say, it must forever be your right to say it, just as its' my right to argue against it. If we lose that, then our society has truly gone down the shitter.

Regards the anti vaxxers though the articles are written as if the science isn't settled.  That's what pisses me off.

All fair points. I totally agree with you re. the shooting video. I was pissed off on the day that most news outlets were running segments of it.  

I'm on the fence with anti-vaxxers. On one hand I think they are absolute scum and hate that they get to voice their opinion. On the other hand, I feel like censorship of their warped viewpoint actually seeks to self-validate as they already think that their beliefs are being 'suppressed' (ridiculous , but true). I think the best thing to do is challenge them on every front possible and expose their baseless bullshit  in the public sphere.  

I'm not saying to ban criticism of anyone Rusty.  I'm saying that when talking heads talk what they say has consequences.  And these consequences are sometimes real. 

And all you do is sit there and mouth weasel words instead of answering a simple question.

Why can't you magnaminous enough to admit that?  When you've made relevant points in the past I've agreed with them.

Trump sits there and stokes up resentment and creates division and can't even bring himself to say white nationalists or nazis are bad.  How hard can it be to say nazis are bad?  Instead we get 'there are bad people on both sides'.  The deranged lunatic tweeted 50 times over the weekend about all sorts of rubbish and couldn't spare a minute to denounce white supremicists?  This is no accident.  He is the perfect example of a dog-whistling scum of the earth charlatan.

Are you actually saying that these types of things don't embolden some people to act?

And I agree, the Greens shouldn't call anyone, except actual nazis, nazis.  (Unless of course they're acting like nazis.)

 

I'n not talking about regulating free speech.  I'm saying that those in charge have to be mindful of what they're saying and the possible consequences of what they're saying.

I've noticed recently on news.com.au they're constantly running profiles on anti-vaxxers.  They pay lip service to the fact that they're deluded but why give them a profile at all?  With regards to some subjects there should be no inherent right to put balance in a report when 99.9% of X disagrees with Y.  And yet both sides are portrayed as standing on an equal scientific basis.  That is far from the case when it comes to say vaccinations, or the holocaust or chemtrails or whatever. 

Why?  Because it generates clicks, and clicks mean money.  It's pretty disgusting actually.

With regards to the shooting video.  News.com.au ran a story yesterday on how the police asked the bloke for 8chan for some information and he basically told them to jam it.  Then they said something along the lines of 'whilst the video has been removed from facebook, twitter and instgram it's still available to be viewed on X,Y and Z'.

I mean what the fuck?!  Why would you even say that.  If they must say it's still available why not say 'it's still possible to be viewed'.  Why direct people directly to the exact websites where these things are held?

It's fucking disgraceful and such a shame.  They trade of fear. 

I just think it's a slippery slope once you start to try and regulate what people say. Everybody has a different point of view over what constitutes hate speech. I've even see some social commentary suggesting forms of satire are hate speech. 

It reminds me if VAR with football. Well intentioned but basically impossible to achieve without horrid inconsistency due to the subjective nature of things.

It is not hate speech to attack those who truly are evil. I am not against the people who go to Catholic Church, I am against the organisation, the business with it corrupt money grabbing ways and its covering up of child abuse. These are not decisions made by the lay people, this is what Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes do.

Yes, and it's a ridiculous thread. 

Rusty is right in the sense that people do like to pick and choose what's ok or not based on what suits them and their viewpoints. It's fine to have anti-religious views (of whichever religion) but when will society learn its lesson about the public vilification of people of a specific race/gender/religion based on the actions of a minority and how dangerous it can be?

Probably never.

Exactly.  The Greens calling Dutton a terrorist could also be construed as hate speech.  Or calling Abbott a Nazi or Trump a white supremacist and other folk as homophobes, misogynists, racists and Islamaphobes based on their religious and personal beliefs could also be construed at hate speech.  The Left are the absolute masters of hate speech, but they hide their hate speech behind a veneer of moral virtue and so they are free to practice their hate speech in public.  

Wouldn't think I'd agree with rusty but he has a point here? 

Who defines what "hate speech" is?

Is the thread in this very sub-forum calling for the banning of the catholic church tantamount to hate speech?

Can you point out some examples of Australian media and politicians directly blaming the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks?

"You just can’t pick and choose which forms or criticism should and shouldn’t be allowed based on your politics."

You absolutely can when it's fucking hate speech. 

Julie Bishop's head covering sends the wrong message to Iranian
Julie Bishop should have shunned headscarf on Iran ... - The Guardian
Julie Bishop cops more criticism for wearing head scarf in Iran | Daily .
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop sparks debate over headscarf in Iran ..

----------------------

Christchurch shooting: Jacinda Ardern's empathetic hijab photo
Jacinda Ardern Wore Hijab To Support New Zealand People
Face of empathy: Jacinda Ardern photo resonates with the world after terror attack
Hijab-wearing New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern hailed for ... - Geo.tv

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Making a comment or even enshrining something in policy is worlds away from carrying out a despicable act of violence or terror. It’s not like Hanson, Anning and others have been calling for bloodshed to end Immigration, they have always but not necessarily elegantly sought to pursue their policies through the democratic process.

If you’re going to ban criticism against them then you have to apply the same logic to all forms of criticism. You would have to ban media and Democrat criticism of Trump and the Republicans because that might cause some nutter to shoot up Republican senators at a kids baseball.  You would have to ban criticism against US and their allies because that might provide ammo for Islamists to carry out terrorist acts against Western nations.  You would have to ban criticism against Jews because that might cause some disgruntled Muslim or neo  nazi to shoot up a synagogue.

You just can’t pick and choose which forms or criticism should and shouldn’t be allowed based on your politics.  This was an isolated incident and free speech shouldn’t be eviscerated on the basis of one persons actions.  The best way to handle Anning, Hanson and the terrorist apologists in the Greens and Labor is to not give their views airtime on media platforms and secondly to boot them out of the parliament.  Sadly if you’re going to allow one side of extremism to fester you open up the door to the other side.  what Anning said is no different from what others in the parliament and media have frequently said in relation to attacks against the West,  blaming the victims and aplogising for the terrorists.  As a great Australian once said, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

It's not.

Surely calling for an end to muslim immigration, saying they don't assimilate, saying they have no place in Australia and how their culture is not compatible multiple times across multiple platforms winds up these people on the fringes even more though.

Would you not agree?  It may not be the root cause but it's definitely a contributing factor.

FWIW I think Morrison is pretty moderate.  I think Hanson, Anning and their ilk are the major cause of all this sort of lunacy.  Back in the day these fuckwits wouldn't have seen the light of day.  Now they're given a platform.  

It's drawing a long bow to link the attack to Morisson and Trump, and other figures on the Right, which really amounts to political opportunism.  It's no different than blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists.  You can't on one hand say the Christchurch attack is the fault of the Right, and Islamic terror attacks in no way are reflective or representative of the broader Islamic community.  That's called a double standard.

It's been debunked iirc. They had one guy but everyone at the mosque dissuaded  him

I'm pushing the point precisely because people are putting their heads in the sand. No one can say this isn't us because it is us. It goes for Trumps statements as well as Morrisons statements.

There is nothing cheap about it, here there's a lot of soul searching going on too.

You keep pushing this point over and over, and the more you do the more I'm starting to feel you're trying to push some cheap Australia vs New Zealand narratives.

Pretty sad mate. I understand you're upset but you're burying your head in the sand if you think this is the fault of Australian right wing extremism. This is a community that by and large operates and interacts on the web and has supporters across the western world, including NZ. 

Fuck me the amount of people trying to point to "b-b-b-b-but the Mosques had been reported for radicalizing people" as some form of justification for the murders is fucking stupid.

Why are there so many uneducated fuckwits on social media?

-PB

Ok Rus.

I don't know if that happened or not but what we're doing as a society isn't working. Meeting hatred with hatred is just causing more problems a bigger man would do what politicians are doing in New Zealand and meeting the hatred with compassion.

What was particularly galling about his comments is that he insinuated that New Zealand has a problem with Muslim extremists. We don't, I can't think of any incidents at all, none. We might have people radicalising on both sides after all this though. The other galling thing is the perpetrator is an Australian and the evidence seems to show that he did it completely alone, we don't even have radicalised enough white supremacists to help him out. This was something completely engineered by someone foreign to us.

That last point, the fact that a person from Annings own country did this to us should have kept his tongue tied.

We've been absolutely violated and it's sickening.

It might be hard to comprehend what this is like because there are more race related problems in Australia, but New Zealand is a small country and reasonably safe. I used to work in the emergency services and we had every single emergency come through our systems on a board on the wall and there would be hours where nothing was happening, then something would come in and it would be call out the fire service because there's ducklings stuck in a stormwater drain, a big night would be during a storm when roofing iron got loose and flew around a town. That was all emergency services call outs (fire, ambulance, police) for the whole country.

Annings trying to create problems where they don't exist just for attention is just messed up.

Mun I noticed this post and I picked up a few spelling errors so I hope you don't mind me correcting them.