THE PSYCHOLOGIST : How do you spell 'set up'?

How do you spell 'set up'?

Well, it seems the lefties manning the PC battlements in Victoria have decided to up the ante a little. Not content to sit around waiting, they decided to go out there and 'get' a couple of evil crusader infidels (and even passed legislation specifically intended to protect the poor Muslims in order to proceed).

And get them they did:

Church vilified Muslims: ruling

AN evangelical Christian ministry has been found to have vilified Islam during a seminar and in a newsletter which mocked the religion.In a decision handed down today in a key test of Victoria's three-year-old racial and religious vilification laws, Judge Michael Higgins found in favour of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which took the action against Catch The Fire.
Judge Higgins said that, during the seminar, Pastor Scot had claimed that the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Liars and demons? Emotive, I'd agree (assuming they said it, of course). But the Koran indeed does preach what the Pastors claimed. Ooh - I get it, that may well be the case, but if saying so might breed intolerance: 'shadappaya face'.

Pastor Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun western democracy by violence and terror. . .

For God's sake, they've said as much! Oh - sorry - I forgot (again) - that may in fact be so; we're just not allowed to repeat it. This is great, isn't it? I can preach all the hate I like (if I'm a Muslim) but if you (a non-Muslim) repeat what I say to anyone else (like the congregation of your non-Muslim church), then look out for the black helicopters. I wonder if it works both ways? Okay, you can stop the hysterical laughter now. It was a joke (even if in spectacularly poor taste).

Victoria's Equal Opportunity Commission welcomed the decision on the case, which was the first to be heard by VCAT since the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act took effect at the start of 2002.
"The decision is very significant in terms of showing how the Act operates in practice," said the commission's chief executive, Dr Helen Szoke."It demonstrates where the line is drawn between legitimate public debate and behaviour that incites hatred."

Oh really? And when an Imam gets up in his Mosque, preaching Jihad (as Imams have done here in Australia), what then? Sure, lefties, we know exactly what you're going to say. But what would be the reality? You see, we know that, too. So when national broadcasters like SBS deliberately edit out video of the head of the Sydney Mosque doing precisely that, preaching the glories of Jihad and martyrdom at the hands of the latest season's fashion in prêt-à-porte C4 bomb wear, can we call that complicity?

Cue tumble weeds and twilight crickets. . .

The 'set up'

It started with the Equal Opportunity Commission in 2002. Diane Sisely, its then head, set out to explain to thousands of Victorians (particularly Muslims and Arabs) about the discrimination and vilification laws the Bracks Government had enacted, and how to go about registering a complaint. Then she hired May Helou (who has since left), the head of the Islamic Council of Victoria's support groups for women and Muslim converts. Yep, you read that right. She hired Helou to make sure "people from Arabic and Muslim communities are aware of their rights under anti-discrimination laws" and offer "support to people wishing to make a complaint".

Then May Helou told a number of Muslim converts about the seminar being run by Catch the Fire Ministries. Apparently the pretext was that the seminar would be full of Christians with no Muslims present.

That night the ministry ran its seminar, with three Muslims attending (not that anyone else present knew that), and no doubt taking copious notes of one kind or another.

For the record, the speaker, Pastor Scot, was a Pakistani, who, while in Pakistan, had faced a sentence of death for being a Christian. He had also lived in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (he was a man who knew what he was talking about). During the seminar, he read passages from the Koran and Hadith, the same passages radical clerics often use to justify pillaging, jihadi head-hacking, lying for the faith, murdering converts from Islam, raping women etc., etc. Apparently when the Pastor had finished, one of the Muslims asked him how Christians should react to all this? Pastor Scot (to his credit as a devout Christian) told the man to pray and love Muslims (feeling vilified, yet? Apparently the Muslims all were; all that loving and praying - horrific).

Surprise, surprise, these Muslim converts later met with Helou at the EOC and decided to complain (another surprising turn of events, huh?). The stage now well and truly set, it was the EOC that then acted as the neutral adjudicator in the conciliation talks that were to take place as a result. The talks failed (as if there was even the slightest chance they would succeed in the first place, given the background, and given the EOC was now playing judge, jury and prosecutor).

The rest is history.

The Pastors were dragged before VCAT, and have now been found to have vilified Muslims. And like we didn't see that one coming, too? But once again, I have left the very, very best for last (and the crux of this entire, sorry case, given it lies at the heart of it all). Apparently, last Friday, Pastor Scot was asked by Debbie Mortimer, the Islamic Council's barrister, to stop reading passages from the Koran.

Why?

Because the readings vilified Muslims.

If this utter debacle were a joke, one might be forgiven for laughing. That it isn't is a total disgrace.

No comments:

Background

The essence of conservatism is caution. The essence of Leftism is anger

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists.

The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Global warming

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Two examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):

Beatrice Webb, a founder of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society, and married to a Labour MP, mused in 1922 on whether when English children were "dying from lack of milk", one should extend "the charitable impulse" to Russian and Chinese children who, if saved this year, might anyway die next. Besides, she continued, there was "the larger question of whether those races are desirable inhabitants" and "obviously" one wouldn't "spend one's available income" on "a Central African negro".

Hugh Dalton, offered the Colonial Office during Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government, turned it down because "I had a horrid vision of pullulating, poverty stricken, diseased nigger communities, for whom one can do nothing in the short run and who, the more one tries to help them, are querulous and ungrateful."

Defensible and indefensible usages of the term "racism"

The book, The authoritarian personality, authored by T.W. Adorno et al. in 1950, has been massively popular among psychologists. It claims that a set of ideas that were popular in the "Progressive"-dominated America of the prewar era were "authoritarian". Leftist regimes always are authoritarian so that claim was not a big problem. What was quite amazing however is that Adorno et al. identified such ideas as "conservative". They were in fact simply popular ideas of the day but ones that had been most heavily promoted by the Left right up until the then-recent WWII. See here for details of prewar "Progressive" thinking.

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a war criminal. Both British and American codebreakers had cracked the Japanese naval code so FDR knew what was coming at Pearl Harbor. But for his own political reasons he warned no-one there. So responsibility for the civilian and military deaths at Pearl Harbor lies with FDR as well as with the Japanese. The huge firepower available at Pearl Harbor, both aboard ship and on land, could have largely neutered the attack. Can you imagine 8 battleships and various lesser craft firing all their AA batteries as the Japanese came in? The Japanese naval airforce would have been annihilated and the war would have been over before it began.

FDR prolonged the Depression. He certainly didn't cure it.

WWII did NOT end the Great Depression. It just concealed it. It in fact made living standards worse

Joe McCarthy was eventually proved right after the fall of the Soviet Union. To accuse anyone of McCarthyism is to accuse them of accuracy!

The KKK was intimately associated with the Democratic party. They ATTACKED Republicans!

People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter:

The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.

America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here

Did William Zantzinger kill poor Hattie Carroll?

Did Bismarck predict where WWI would start or was it just a "free" translation by Churchill?

Leftist psychologists have an amusingly simplistic conception of military organizations and military men. They seem to base it on occasions they have seen troops marching together on parade rather than any real knowledge of military men and the military life. They think that military men are "rigid" -- automatons who are unable to adjust to new challenges or think for themselves. What is incomprehensible to them is that being kadaver gehorsam (to use the extreme Prussian term for following orders) actually requires great flexibility -- enough flexibility to put your own ideas and wishes aside and do something very difficult. Ask any soldier if all commands are easy to obey.

A good article on Leftist hate

The real history of social Darwinism

Some personal memoirs

Memoir highlights

THE PSYCHOLOGIST

How do you spell 'set up'?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive