“Islamophobia” is an imaginary disease, invented by the MuBros to stifle criticism about Islam. It is an insult to more than four fifths of the worlds population who find Islam revolting.
Nothing and no one can force you to like a genocidal belief system. We do not have an irrational fear of islam. We are not “phobic” and especially not “irrational”. We reject the revulsive ideology of islam. That’s the difference.
Perhaps that headline is misleading – as much as the concept of Islamophobia itself is. I understand in the ACT they want to outlaw criticism of Islam – but graciously extend it to criticism of religion in general.
This is a great leap forward – to the Middle Ages approximately – though the punishment by death or trial by social media resulting in painful death is still a few steps away.
Let me aid the Greens. Why not outlaw criticism of Global Warming / Climate Change. Outlaw criticism of Clinton. Outlaw criticism of the safe school teachings. Outlaw criticism of migration policy – heck – just outlaw dissent with the Greens policies in general, really.
Now, I have a serious proposal for the Greens:
Why not outlaw the teaching of homophobia and the call to violence against those who engage in it.
Why not outlaw the teaching of gender segregation – real, not imagined.
Why not outlaw the teaching that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s?
Why not outlaw the teaching of armed violence against “others” (and heck – explicit teachings about conquering others and denying their religious freedoms) as a guarantee of eternal salvation?
Why not outlaw parallel legal systems which act on a rather retrograde moral and ethical code which is forbidden from “progressing” and is hence stuck in the 7th century?
Why not outlaw teachings of hate towards people who tend to represent your voting base?
I know it makes a lot of sense – and yet you do the opposite? Why not take the time to listen to and study the materials which are at the heart of that which you seek to protect from criticism.
Your actions are disconcertingly illogical. All that can really explain it is the thought that the best way to explain the actions of an institution is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Having written that – I can now make sense of your actions. I only hope those who will be punished by your actions – and I do not mean the critics of your real ideological enemy – will wisen up to the disservice that you seek to impose upon their future rights.