Hilary or Donald

[Zorco]

 

[manticle]

Cat bad or sad?

 

[Zorco]

meow

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Cat be still

 

[good4whatAlesU]

And then... there was a loud splash as someone else threw a large rock into the pond...

As you point out given the law can't be practically applied, it is redundant and accepted that once you get your name crossed off the list you can do what you like. Many do. Do you know of any individual who has been otherwise prosecuted?

There are many dictionaries, most of which are updated yearly so to pick one definition from one dictionary from one year as a point of fact is invalid.

My point is, that we have many freedoms available to citizens of our country. One of which is the freedom to walk down the street, with our face shown, communicating fully as we choose. Personally I think that's a great thing.

We also have freedom of religion. That is also a great thing (especially if you are religious). Those who practice restraints and restrictions as part of their religion do so freely under Australian law (good), but in my opinion - as such they choose to forgo (waive), by choice, other freedoms available to them. Mostly, it is women who 'choose' to make those self chosen sacrifices, based on religious text written by men.

 

[manticle]

Using a widely accepted reference text is invalid?

Your points are poorly made and laboured and I don't think you've found much support.

Rock analogy is pretty average too.

Sorry to be so blunt.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Your opinion is your own and you are welcome to it.

I disagree and retain the right to do so in a civil manner.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

In the name of reaching out to people to ensure they are aware of the civil liberties available to them, in our wonderful country - call me Inspector Gadget.

or perhaps another Inspector

 

[good4whatAlesU]

QED

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Good evening gentlemen, sleep well.

 

[goomboogo]

The issue of dictionary editors making regular updates to definitions is vexed. Macquarie's decision to expand the definition of misogyny was an appeasement to a high profile individual's incorrect use of the term. The claim that language evolves and dictionaries need to keep pace with such changes is raising a white flag to abuse and misunderstanding of the language. Using this logic, it is only a matter of time before we see Macqaurie change their definition of ironic to include, 'a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.

 

[Blind Dog]

31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.

Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.

 

[wynnum1]

31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.

Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.

What about special forces Burqa.

 

[Zorco]

31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.

Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.

I did, a few posts up

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

There are many dictionaries, most of which are updated yearly so to pick one definition from one dictionary from one year as a point of fact is invalid.

Sounds a bit like the bible

 

[Dave70]

Ha, ha. Reading back what I wrote, i guess I can't blame someone for thinking I was a foil hat wearing, paranoid, conspiracy theorist.

Dave, you read something into my post that I did not intend to imply. That's the problem with the written word, sometimes. I guess I wasn't careful enough with my wording, but it was late. I was not trying to imply that the laws were heavy handed or that we were over governed or over legislated. I was only trying to state that the premise that we have certain freedoms or rights, that were being espoused by some on the thread, are a bit of an illusion. I think the popular American culture that we are exposed to constantly has warped the perception of reality. The examples I used were to provide insight into the fact that we don't have this absolute freedom that some seem to think we do and that there is legislation that prevent us from doing many things that some people think we are entitled. On the flip side, there are many things we can do, that we have no entitlement too. We can still do them and it's not breaking any law, but that does not mean it is a civil liberty or a right.

The example with the pub and church are actual examples of matters that were taken to court (I can't find the case law just now, but it doesn't matter, they are poor examples for what I was trying to say anyway). The public square thing was another example from laws preventing people from espousing their opinions or beliefs in certain situations. In America, similar things are allowed, under the guise of freedom of expression. I think we all remember the Quran burnings and other stupid things that have gone on in recent years over there. Yes, the internet is a great way for people to hide their hate speech or other B.S., but it doesn't necessarily make it legal in Australia, but again that is getting way off point.

Sorry I pushed at your open door..... :unsure: The foil hat came down over my eyes, so I missed it :lol: You really should shut your door, anyone might wander in and steal your home brew :drinks:

We still need people like you on the wall JOAB.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

In the same way that the IRA are not either....

From Wikipeadia

In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[80] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[81]

Some people will see a terrorist in their own shadow.
https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-u-s-house-of-representatives-u-s-senate-list-the-ku-klux-klan-as-an-official-terrorist-organization

Your bows are getting even longer.

The bill was never about respect for women but keep blocking your ears. Point's been laboured enough.

Many bills get put forward and passed as a double edged sword, In the bill in question have you not even considered why it has been written in, that anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa or full face covering can face a fine and imprisonment?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/98263/five-reasons-ban-burqa-daniel-greenfield

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

So why is everyone up in arms about the burqa......From what I have ascertained, no one in Australia has been killed or maimed by a women wearing a burqa. I might be wrong, but cant find anything

I think it more hysterics and irrational fear

We have a large Sikh population up around here, wonderful people, but there are those who oppose them wearing turbans because **** witts think they are terrorists

 

[bradsbrew]

A lot of the people arguing against the burka do not even know what it is.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I don't think there has been any terrorist wearing burqa's burqa's, maybe the odd suicide bomber but that could still happen wearing a hijab, the only ones to complain who are directly involved would be the men, and the few women who chose to wear it.
http://pol-check.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/do-muslim-women-want-to-wear-burka.html