Hypocrite Janet Albrechtsen
Hypocrite Janet is a gutless wonder indeed.
Does she know;
Theodor Hartzl, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Joseph Weitz, The 1952 Law of Entry, The 1952 Citizenship Law, The Law of Acquisition of Absentee Property, … are only a few examples to prove the fact that the Zionists were conspiring to create racist Israel long before Hitler's so called holocaust and they were also planning for the painful and slow motion Israeli Holocaust in Palestine.
First Jewish colony in Palestine, 1878, United Nations Partition Plan-UN Resolution 181, 1947 / Rhodes Armistice Line, 1949 and Projection of the West Bank Final Status Map presented by Israel, Camp David, July 2000 are further evidence of the longest running concentration camps know to mankind in the occupied Palestine with a stamp of infirmity. This blatant slow motion Israeli Holocaust in the occupied
Did she ever condemn the Holocaust crap? Certainly not! What about The Sacred Cow, Zionism Is Incompatible With Any Civilised Society, Ugly Judaism Is Incompatible With Any Religion, Colin Jacobs of Electronic Frontier, Deception and Manipulation, Contemporary Jewish Quotes, Jewish Supremacy, Pre-Contemporary Jewish Quotes and Historical Facts, Thesis of Faruque Ahmed, 1001 Quotes By and About Jews, … . let’s talk about all of those or talk none.
Also please do not forget disappearing Palestine, 60 years of Al –Nakba (catastrophe), gradual ethnic cleansing, A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel", Israeli Holocaust, Holocaust continuum, The Iron Wall, Jews plan to suppress ideas THEY hate and Middle East Formula for Peace they needed a 9/11 to cover up their crime waves continuum. Remember they have organized and successfully suppressed the 9/11 of 1967. Please examine this video and deliver you verdict.
No one would be crucified, should one wish to deny Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or Buda. Even no one would punish anyone for telling, “the capitalism is the conspiracy of rich and powerful”. However, the denial of so-called holocaust is the cardinal sin of the century! May I ask, why? Yet, the same holocaust traders are denying the most painful and slow motion holocaust in the occupied Palestine in front of every one! What a blatant hypocrisy!!! What a double standard!!!!
Deception and Manipulation
Morons & White Trash like you are ruling the airwaves, radio, television, newspapers as well as some demented leftists too. Australian Culture and Australian Values are your prime capital along with deception and manipulation. You lots are unable to free yourself from the Deliberate Lies of Radio 2UE!
People like Janet love to dismiss 1001 Quotes By and About Jews as neo-Nazi propaganda!
Contemporary Jewish Quotes, Jewish Supremacy, Pre-Contemporary Jewish Quotes and Historical Facts, Hypothesis of Faruque Ahmed, Thesis of Faruque Ahmed and Theory of Faruque Ahmed are good read.
Come on friends of Janet be equal opportunity abuser or do not abuse anyone. Remember, no one belongs to superior race, chosen people, born to rule tribe etc. etc.
THE dark spectre of illiberalism is slowly poisoning Western liberal democracies. You won't hear about it from much of the left-liberal press. It is part of the problem and its silence only confirms that basic liberties integral to Western liberal democracies are under threat. That is why you may not have heard about the trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is being prosecuted under hate laws in The
In a trial that began last month, Wilders is being prosecuted for offending a "group of people", for incitement and discrimination against Muslims. The summons describes scenes from his film Fitna as reason enough to put the leader of the Freedom Party in prison for up to two years.
In a sign of how twisted our Western antennae have become, the violence incited by Fitna is not against Muslims. Instead the film shows footage of Muslims preaching violence against the West. Yet Wilders is on trial for his opinions.
That said, Wilders does have harsh things to say about Islam. He likens the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf and wants it banned. No doubt this is hurtful to Muslims. No doubt this offends them. It may even be hateful. But in June 2009 Dutch prosecutors declined to act against Wilders because "freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means offensive comments can be made in a political debate."
Flexing its activist arm, the Dutch appeals court decided to prosecute Wilders anyway. Make no mistake. This is a political trial.
Wilders's Freedom Party is presently the most popular political party in The Netherlands. In last year's elections for the European Parliament, it won 17 per cent of the vote, second only to the ruling Christian Democrats on 19.9 per cent.
Wilders, who has made no secret of his views about Islam, could well be the next prime minister if that popularity is maintained. In other words, the Dutch seem interested in having a debate about what Wilders has to say about Islam.
Alas, the Dutch political class is not interested. And it is downright eerie how it aims to shut down debate. By using hate laws to criminalise Wilders's views, it has effectively co-opted Islamic laws to prohibit criticism of Islam.
Criticism of Christianity is fair game. After all, when was the last hate law prosecution of a critic of Christianity? By contrast, Islam has special protective laws. The same happened in
The left-liberal press is not that interested in free speech either. Perhaps free speech does not matter to it. Or perhaps these kinds of prosecutions are now so commonplace, they don't warrant a headline. Either way, this spells the decay of Western liberal democracies.
Last year, ACMA tossed out the complaint. No matter. Hassan also lodged a complaint with
Never mind that countries such as
And he had plenty to say about women in short skirts. He expressed his disgust at being "forced to look at the backside of a woman who bends over in front of me in supermarket to pick an item off a bottom shelf". It is a health hazard, he says. "Non-Muslim women do not use water to clean themselves when they go to the toilet." Thus, bending over in a supermarket could cause serious health risks, Hassan wrote, especially for little children who "because of their height, may have such [a] scene right in their face".
Instead of dismissing this barrage of invective from Hassan, the ADC has decided that Smith has a case to answer.
Have we gone mad? Even if you think Smith's call for banning the burka is offensive - and, by the way, plenty of people in Western countries don't - using the law as a sledgehammer to suppress even the most offensive opinions is wrong.
The chilling effect of these laws will cause far greater problems for Western democracies than the problems anti-discrimination laws try to address.
Shutting down public debates will only drive discussion underground where, away from the blowtorch of challenging views, they will fester and grow more extreme in private. And shutting down offensive debate at the request of loony objectors just encourages more thin-skinned outrage, with ever more outlandish claims to protection from free speech, and increasing censorship. If you really want to discredit bad ideas, the surest way is to expose them to free and full debate. Remember, too, that plenty of ideas that were once regarded as offensive by a group of puffed-up, moralising sophisticates have prevailed.
If these same arguments defending freedom of expression are not made each and every time someone is prosecuted for their opinions, the great danger is that these kinds of stifling prosecutions will be regarded as the norm in a society that has seemingly forgotten or forsaken its values.