Australia Banning Free Speech...

[tabibito]

What are you talking about. You are the one who first mentioned Islamic terrorism - so where did your government call it that? And why try it get the video suppressed on X?

Is this good enough for you? But you have shifted from the claim that it was about censoring the story at least.

[seer]

Is this good enough for you? But you have shifted from the claim that it was about censoring the story at least.

No it is not.

Albanese confirmed the incident inside the church on Monday night was being treated as religiously motivated, a development which gives NSW police extraordinary powers to search people and vehicles and demand the disclosure of people’s identities to avoid any further violence.

Law enforcement agencies have not yet revealed the teenager’s religious background, name, or previous interactions with authorities. He was not on a terrorism watch list and police believe he was acting alone.

What the hell does that mean? Religiously motivated? Was the attacker a Hindu? A Buddhist? Must have been a Sikh!

[seer]

But you have shifted from the claim that it was about censoring the story at least.

But they are trying to censor the video and they are censoring the Islamic connection.

[tabibito]

But they are trying to censor the video and they are censoring the Islamic connection.

Only the video is censored. The Islamic connection is not - the "insult to Mohammed" has been mentioned in more than one news-paper article here (it is down-played but explicit ... a matter of MSM editorial decisions, not a government requirement). The age is not - the perpetrator is 16. Nonetheless, the MSM has been at liberty to state, and has stated, that the perpetrator is Muslim. The perpetrator's nationality has not been concealed - Police will not ordinarily release the name of any minor accused of anything. Police will not ordinarily release details of prior offences by any minor, regardless of their nature - nonetheless, the information that the perpetrator has faced charges for weapons offences has been released by the MSM - that information too has not been suppressed.

The attack triggered an urgent investigation, leading to mass police raids across Sydney last week and charges against six more boys, as young as 14, accused of being part of a terrorist network with the Wakeley attacker.

An ABC investigation into the 16-year-old has uncovered a history of severe behavioural issues, interactions with extremists online, and police suspicions of links to a former Islamic State member notorious for his influence on young terrorists.

So much for the story about anything more than the video being suppressed by government order.

[seer]

Only the video is censored. The Islamic connection is not - the "insult to Mohammed" has been mentioned in more than one news-paper article here (it is down-played but explicit ... a matter of MSM editorial decisions, not a government requirement). The age is not - the perpetrator is 16. Nonetheless, the MSM has been at liberty to state, and has stated, that the perpetrator is Muslim. The perpetrator's nationality has not been concealed - Police will not ordinarily release the name of any minor accused of anything. Police will not ordinarily release details of prior offences by any minor, regardless of their nature - nonetheless, the information that the perpetrator has faced charges for weapons offences has been released by the MSM - that information too has not been suppressed.

That was not my point I asked why your government did not make the Islamic connection? And still hasn't. You government knows the truth - why not say it?

An ABC investigation into the 16-year-old has uncovered a history of severe behavioural issues, interactions with extremists online, and police suspicions of links to a former Islamic State member notorious for his influence on young terrorists.[/box]

So much for the story about anything more than the video being suppressed by government order.

Really, your government as called it Islamic terrorism? Face it, since the lock downs it is clear that you live in a PC fascist state.

[tabibito]

That was not my point I asked why your government did not make the Islamic connection? And still hasn't. You government knows the truth - why not say it?




Really, your government as called it Islamic terrorism? Face it, since the lock downs it is clear that you live in a PC fascist state.

Contra your claims, the government did not attempt to suppress the story, nor the story's salient details. Your later introduced claims about the government not making religion the focus are addressed by the American experience when politicians make specific reference to race or religion in response to an untoward event. Here, the relevant governments, as is proper, tend to not make such events a religious or race issue - they tend to address the general issue of terrorist acts and speak against terrorist actions. A government representative highlighting race or religion would inflame rather than de-escalate tensions. Any negative comment about Islamic terrorism, as an example, could be considered to implicitly exempt other religions from condemnation for terrorist acts. Consider "black lives matter" and what it is considered to mean for whites or Asians.

[seer]

Contra your claims, the government did not attempt to suppress the story, nor the story's salient details. Your later introduced claims about the government not making religion the focus are addressed by the American experience when politicians make specific reference to race or religion in response to an untoward event. Here, the relevant governments, as is proper, tend to not make such events a religious or race issue - they tend to address the general issue of terrorist acts and speak against terrorist actions. A government representative highlighting race or religion would inflame rather than de-escalate tensions. Any negative comment about Islamic terrorism, as an example, could be considered to implicitly exempt other religions from condemnation for terrorist acts. Consider "black lives matter" and what it is considered to mean for whites or Asians.

I get it, your government says it was religiously motivated but refused to tell us which religion. That is the suppression of facts, I don't care how you couch it.

[tabibito]

I get it, your government says it was religiously motivated but refused to tell us which religion. That is the suppression of facts, I don't care how you couch it.

Obviously, you favour a government that inflames division rather than promoting cohesion. Nothing was suppressed, or we would not know anything about the offender.

[seer]

Obviously, you favour a government that inflames division rather than promoting cohesion. Nothing was suppressed, or we would not know anything about the offender.

I favor a government that doesn't hide the truth for the sake of political correctness, which is what you are advocating. And it doesn't just happen in your country, it happen here too - recently a 'trans' person shot up a Christian school but the authorities would not release her manifesto.

[tabibito]

I favor a government that doesn't hide the truth for the sake of political correctness, which is what you are advocating. And it doesn't just happen in your country, it happen here too - recently a 'trans' person shot up a Christian school but the authorities would not release her manifesto.

Where did the Australian government hide the truth? Did the governments' representatives pretend that the offender wasn't Muslim? No. Did the governments attempt to hide the truth about the ideological focus of the offender? No.Graphic images have been banned - the story has not.

[seer]

Where did the Australian government hide the truth? Did the governments' representatives pretend that the offender wasn't Muslim? No. Did the governments attempt to hide the truth about the ideological focus of the offender? No.Graphic images have been banned - the story has not.

Where did the Government ID his religion? Link please...

[tabibito]

Where did the Government ID his religion? Link please...

Your question fails to convince me that you're a complete idiot.

[seer]

Your question fails to convince me that you're a complete idiot.

So you can't answer. Your government did not name his religion - correct?

[tabibito]

So you can't answer. Your government did not name his religion - correct?

Did not name, and did not act to prevent others from naming. Suppression would be acting to prevent naming. The priority for a sane government is to so speak and act as to defuse conflict between the various factions within a community rather than provoking its citizenry to bite and snap at each other (Galatians 5:15 comes to mind). The government likewise did not name the people who rioted in response to the attack. Will you claim that that too was wrong - that the government, in speaking of those rioters, should have made an issue of the fact that they were members of a Christian church? The wrongs of terrorism and rioting were addressed, which was appropriate for a sane government.

[seer]

Did not name, and did not act to prevent others from naming. Suppression would be acting to prevent naming. The priority for a sane government is to so speak and act as to defuse conflict between the various factions within a community rather than provoking its citizenry to bite and snap at each other (Galatians 5:15 comes to mind). The government likewise did not name the people who rioted in response to the attack. Will you claim that that too was wrong - that the government, in speaking of those rioters, should have made an issue of the fact that they were members of a Christian church? The wrongs of terrorism and rioting were addressed, which was appropriate for a sane government.

So your press names the religion, everyone knows the religion. So what is your government protecting? And it was obvious that many Christian were involved in the push back, many were carrying crosses in the videos. And I would have no problem IDing them as Christian.