Why do we have to keep going over and over the same thing(s) again and again?
Free speech versus free bigotry. Shouldn’t it just be simple?
Extract: “Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, however, freedom of speech is not the only right that we have: People also have the right to be free from racial vilification, bullying and abuse, writes Tanya Cohen.
Here in Australia, it’s just common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, vilify, incite hatred or violence, be impolite or uncivil, disrespect, oppose human rights, spread lies or misinformation, argue against the common good, or promote ideas which have no place in society. We all learned this in school, and it’s not something that’s even up for debate. Hate speech is not free speech, as the oft-repeated saying goes. Freedom of speech is something that comes with responsibility and it has to be balanced against other human rights, such as the human rights to dignity and respect. This is something that more or less everyone here agrees on, including libertarians. Journalists and human rights activists are the biggest supporters of our hate speech laws, but the laws have universal support among all sections of Australian society. Freedom of speech is a core Australian value, but it’s not the only value we have. As Australians living in a society built on diversity and multiculturalism, we simply refuse to tolerate any forms of racism or hatred. The need to protect vulnerable minorities from all forms of hate speech is something that practically all Australians firmly agree with (aside from a few racist bigots who want to incite hatred against vulnerable minorities as “free speech”, of course). Our courts have ruled multiple times that it doesn’t matter whether your statements are “true” or “balanced” or not – if the statements are likely to paint vulnerable minorities in a negative light and/or incite hatred against vulnerable minorities, then those statements are illegal in Australia, as they should be.”
Secondly – interconnected, sort of – this article: http://theaimn.com/stopping-the-travellers/
It suggests: “This Federal Government will do nothing pro-active, when the solution could be quite simple, especially when it comes to the maladjusted and misguided youth of this country, who are a ripe potential for promises of greatness (that’s how all religions work who proselytize and want to seize converts).
The answer may well be this:
That anyone – for any reason given, should not be granted any form of visa, entry permit or travel arrangement to any WAR ZONE currently in the world.“
I think it’s not as simple as that – for one thing, some genuine aid workers and such want to get into those areas sometimes, or close by them, for real reasons. It can be a start, but not the only thing.
it links with an op-ed I saw in The Age on the 24th of March: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/what-jake-bilardi-taught-us-islamic-state-is-filling-an-emotional-need-and-we-need-to-step-in-20150323-1m5cdy.html
We need to seriously look at how we can stop radicalisation.
A couple of months ago, Anne Aly wrote an article for The Guardian which I discovered recently: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/the-role-of-islam-in-radicalisation-is-grossly-overestimated.
“So how do we go about stopping someone from becoming radicalised to the point that they would seek out opportunities to commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens? There are no easy answers. Firstly we need to understand why and how some people become violent extremists in the first place. For some, like Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who shot a Canadian soldier earlier this year, or the Kouachi brothers responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the pathway to violence involves a criminal, violent or unstable past. For these individuals, violent extremism in the name of a religion or ideology is a continuation, and escalation, of an already violent lifestyle. For others who appear to be well adjusted, stable, even well integrated individuals, the reasons for radicalisation are much more varied and complex.
Second, we need to identify where the individual is along the process of radicalisation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to intervene when an individual is at the operational phase of radicalisation. These highly radicalised individuals have accepted violence and may be at the stage of planning for a violent act. They can only be dealt with through law enforcement intervention. But at the early stages of radicalisation, when an individual is starting to show signs of becoming attracted to violent extremism, it is possible to intervene and disrupt the process of radicalisation.
When we approach a situation where an individual is showing signs of becoming radicalised, we also try to understand what is going on in the individual’s life. Have there been some major behavioural changes? Are there any family conflicts that have not been resolved? Is there a person of influence that is introducing them to radical or extremist views? Are there issues in the individual’s personal life that have led him or her to look for ways to vent their anger or frustration? Has the individual stopped being interested in hobbies or pastimes that used to occupy them? These kinds of questions are familiar to the youth who face issues of identity and belonging, regardless of their religion.”
Put simply, we need to do more. All of us, not just Muslim leaders.
I believe that we all want to believe in something – whether that be a religion, science, or simply ourselves. The trouble comes when we lose that faith, then feel that we have no-one to turn to who can answer the questions that result. That’s when scum like Da’esh step in with their slick promos, promising belonging while making war “cool”.