IQ2 Debate: Should God and His Prophets Be Protected From Insult?

When they say “God and his prophets” they mean Allah and Muhammad.

G-d doesn’t need protection, he can look after himself.

An ABC that gives creeps like Waleed Aly & Uthman Badar  a soapbox has  lost the plot.

The St James Ethics Centre & the AMP society should be questioned for facilitating and providing a platform for Muslims to proselytise, spread dawah (propaganda), and Islamic taqiyya, (deception, concealing or disguising the truth about Islam). The Centre should be asked to explain the use of the word ‘ethics’ in their title, as it makes a mockery of their leftist, biased political position and moral bankruptcy.

Adding insult to injury are illustrious guests like UTHMAN BADAR, a radical headbanger from Hizb-ut Tahrir, JULIAN BURNSIDE, an unhinged “let-them-all-in” human rights shyster, YASSMIN ABDEL-MAGIED, a hijabee  riding on black skin privilege who is who-knows-what but most of all a wannabe, there is THOMAS KENEALLY making a clown of himself with his sucking up to Islam and  SIMON LONGSTAFF  St James Ethics Centre moderating the debate.

The question goes to the heart of the matter about freedom of speech and whether we need to tread carefully around religious sensibilities and what constitutes vilification and denigration.

Just who or what should we be protecting?

Entire Talk:

Here is Uthman Badar’s opening statement calling for sharia & Islamic blasphemy laws being imposed in Australia:

Libel blogger and Islamo shyster Yusuf Irfan was there with (one of) his boyfriends, and here is his intellectually challenged contribution, printed in the very leftish Canberra Times:

Why should an allegedly conservative government introduce revolutionary legal measures to protect the ”right” of powerful columnists and shock jocks to abuse their freedom of speech to vilify others?

Yusuf is using  the Tamaskan tatamakan tactic:  “Show a victim’s face, and you will take over”.  Act the victim, and then after a while, you‘ll take over the other person.

The Renaissance Forum blog posted this:

Contributed by a Party for Freedom member

On the 7th November 2013, The St James Ethics Centre held a forum in Sydney entitled ‘Should God and his Prophets be protected from Insult?’ The Centre’s Executive Director Simon Longstaff chaired the event.

On the panel’s affirmative case were self-appointed “Human Rights advocate” and Barrister Julian Burnside and Spokesman for radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir Uthman Badar. Opposing or against the motion was writer Thomas Kenneally, a known leftist and Yasmin Abdel-Magied, Founder of Youth without Borders.

The St James Ethics Centre & the AMP society should be questioned for facilitating and providing a platform for Muslims to proselytise, spread dawah (propaganda), and Islamic taqiyya, which means deception, concealing or disguising the truth. In light of this, the Centre needs to explain the use of the word ‘ethics’ in their title, as it makes a mockery of their leftist, biased political position and moral bankruptcy.

Not only was this topic framed, but also a personable, hijab-wearing Muslim, and a politically correct, goofy and clueless Tom Keneally, chosen to hold the fort for freedom of speech, portrayed the ‘negative’ side. All this, primarily to satiate the tickling ears of a leftist audience who, likewise, could not handle the truth that Islam is contrary to free speech. No pointed or unpleasant questions were directed to Uthman to reveal the unpleasant facts or beliefs of Islam and its rigorous protection of blasphemy laws in Islamic lands.

The selection of Yasmin Abdel-Magried to argue for the ‘negative’ case was a case in point for St James’s leftist cultural relativism and moral inversion. Yasmin Abdel-Magried was supposed to argue for the protection of free speech, but instead largely agreed with the opposing side’s argument. Yasmin is a practicing Muslim, so her religious obligation, namely, the furtherance of Islam, sharia law and jihad is imperative to her. Sharia law does not tolerate criticism of itself, of Islam, or of Mohammad, so naturally it was deceitful in the extreme to promote Yasmin as a “freedom advocate”.

Julian Burnside QC, a hard left ideologue and self styled “human rights advocate”, infamously known for proposing the entire state of Tasmania be declared an immigration detention centre, made the ridiculous assertion that the “real problem is Islamophobia”, when, in fact, the Western world is suffering from Islamo-nausea – the natural, sickening reaction of every freedom-loving person when encountered with this ideology of world domination disguised as a religion.

Evidently, Burnside did not take into account the violent behaviour perpetrated by Muslims in Australia or elsewhere. Muslims were responsible for the Bali bombing in which 88 Australians were murdered. Over twenty thousand terrors attacks have occurred worldwide since 11th September 2001, and yet this did not enter his feeble mind.

Muslims were responsible for the Sydney riots, with many of the placards held by juveniles, inciting beheadings and Jihad. Muslims are also responsible for female genital mutilation, intimidation of Police, infiltration of bikie gangs, control of the drug trade and honour killings in Australia.

The Westmead Hospital in Sydney came under Muslim attack when the emergency units were invaded by large groups of dysfunctional and aggressive Muslims who threatened and intimidated staff. Riot squads were called to intervene.

Uthman Badar, the Spokesman for Hizb-ut-Tahrir, called for the complete shut down of freedom of speech in Australia, the purpose being this: the implementation of sharia law by stealth in Australia. Uthman refused to answer questions as to what punishment would be for those that breached his covert blasphemy laws.

The argument was made using the analogy that there are “limitations to freedom of speech”, and that “you wouldn’t insult the Anzacs”. Evidently in Uthman’s warped mind, he believes that sharia law and the ANZACS share an equality of some sort – what an insult!

Over the years Uthman has consistently encouraged non-integration of Muslims into Australian society, and also preaches that the loyalty of Muslims does not lie with Australia, but Islam only. More recently Uthman warned the Australian government and said, “an act of terrorism is possible, and it will be the fault of the Australian government”.

Fortunately, the audience’s cast votes supported the motion against further restrictions on free speech with over 57% calling for no further tightening of blasphemy laws.

5 thoughts on “IQ2 Debate: Should God and His Prophets Be Protected From Insult?”

  1. Allah is a lunar deity, after all, and Mohammed is apparently his b*tch. I guess it must be their time of the month.

    (Get it? Lunar cycle? Don’t make me explain it.)

  2. You racist people think that it is ok if u insult our god or our prophet. But u watch on the day of judgement. God will make everything right and he will show u kufaar how to insult him and the prophet.

Comments are closed.