What links Israel Folau’s case to the Father’s Rights platform?
As an atheist and agnostic I have no time at all for religious statements. The ancient scriptures were written by men within the context in which their society existed.
The facts:
Both the Bible and the Quran are fundamental documents of the respective faiths and are not banned publications.
Folau refused to sign a contract forbidding him from expressing his support for the biblical teachings and therefore he was free to quote from them on his social media.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to express your thoughts regarding any subject you believe to have merit providing you have not voluntarily given up that right to your employer or any other agent.
What is Hate Speech?
Section 131 of the Human Rights Act deals with extreme acts of offensive speech. It is a criminal offence to publish or use threatening, abusive or insulting words. This section requires an intention of inciting ill-will or hostility to the people targeted.
Folau did not incite hostility to anyone. He believes he can save people, from a place he believes in called hell, by a method called repenting.
The juxtaposition
The zeitgeist of the period in history we are in is a dangerous one for father’s rights. All males are seen as tyrants due to the feminist dogma that states ‘patriarchal hierarchy is pure evil’. To quote material from any publication that challenges that dogma, or indeed display your own thoughts on the matter, may well ‘trigger’ a female reader into disgust thereby deeply offending her.
The writer may well then face criminal proceedings under new hate speech laws that are being considered at the moment.
Such radical legislation may not seem possible but you need to consider the speed at which society has changed its views over such a small period of time and the power and speed at which the radical left is gaining momentum.
I have supported the Gay community since I was very young as I had family friends with that inclination. I always viewed society as ignorant and bigoted in matters concerning homosexuality. Never did I think that society would remain equally ignorant and bigoted when the coin was flipped.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I’m sure the Egyptians were working on it but hadn’t quite got around to building an inverted pyramid.
But as you suggest, when the tyrant is threatened, know that
you’reyour peril is double your trouble.Comment by Boonie — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 7:29 am
*your (a star for a correction should let you away with a short comment)
Comment by Boonie — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 7:31 am
There have been recent discussions on the social contract, and how that might be examined.
Idea of logical (legal) social constructs interacting is also mixed in here.
These two lines from the post;
– “This section requires an intention of inciting ill-will or hostility to the people targeted.”
– ” may well ‘trigger’ a female reader into disgust thereby deeply offending her.”
And this is where I get isolated because no one will agree with me or will they put up an argument as to why I’m wrong.
(If you compare the social reaction and prosecution of 1970s feminist activists and what is being proposed now before you respond that might change your point of view)
The legal basis for the transition from prosecution to persecution is in a shift from Criminal Law to Civil Law.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 7:53 am
As an atheist and agnostic I have no time at all for religious statements. The ancient scriptures were written by men within the context in which their society existed.
I realize this the preamble and not directly related to what you’re saying but I can’t agree with this.
The process that is occurring there is the recycling of common myths. At the point of writing, circa 3000 (BCE) we see the recording of the current version.
The second and significant point is that they weren’t written by men alone. There are female authors contributing to those texts.
Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 8:22 am
Actually I have to correct I said at #4 when I read this:
All males are seen as tyrants due to the feminist dogma that states ‘patriarchal hierarchy is pure evil’.
Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 8:36 am
Probably helpful to get some context around patriarchy as a word.
It didn’t surface in English until the middle of the 2nd millinium. Then it originally referred specically to the social structure of the Israelite people and in the context of government of the family.
It has its roots in Latin and Greek, and so you can look back and see other philosophical discussion around social development in that period.
If you start reading Wikipedia you now get every Dog’s version of what this currently means and generally that is, as said in the post, the oppression of women by men.
That’s what it means in the context of this time period.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 25th June 2019 @ 9:19 am
This may need some clarification from the author …
I’m looking at the ‘pure evil’ in this.
Evil is an immoral to religious spectrum. So I put pure evil in the realm of the supernatural.
Does this mean that the author
– doesn’t believe in God but does believe in the Devil?
– doesn’t believe in either but accepts the existence of a supernatural force?
– is suggesting that Feminists are not behaving like human beings but relious subscribes?
– in the context of what’s written, is suggesting that this fast moving change is heading in the direction of the oppression of men, or even God the mother as opposed to God the Father?
Or is the use of emotive language simply a means of giving priority to the author’s point of view. A way of attracting an empathetic response?
Comment by Boonie — Wed 26th June 2019 @ 8:52 am
#7 Not to keen on pedantic correspondence regarding this. Suggest you check out the etymology and Synonyms of evil then read my opening statement. If you are a father with young children I suggest you burn your energy in submissions to the powers that be regarding the liberty of free speech legislation.
Comment by triassic — Wed 26th June 2019 @ 2:35 pm
Pedantic? In your mind perhaps.
But for some people, even a lot of people there’s uncertainty and confusion.
The bedeviled child is mischievously confused is a Middle English saying that was probably used to explain this.
A little more tolerance for the sake of clarity might not go amiss.
Comment by Evan Myers — Wed 26th June 2019 @ 4:11 pm
Folau has been supported through this so far by people who want a conversation around the conservation of decent human values.
Is it okay to be walking with your little girl or boy, or that your grandmother be affronted with a massive mural, an advertisement for the prevention of aids I believe it was…https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12243009
Who is questioning who here,,,
Comment by mama — Wed 26th June 2019 @ 8:42 pm
If Maria Folau had been the one exercising her Christian beliefs it would have been ignored, never made the media and her husband wouldn’t have been brought into the issue to help crucify a woman. Strange fruit this Feminism.
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 27th June 2019 @ 8:57 am
I’m taking this from the post text;
The zeitgeist of the period in history we are in is a dangerous one for father’s rights. All males are seen as tyrants due to the feminist dogma that states ‘patriarchal hierarchy is pure evil’. To quote material from any publication that challenges that dogma, or indeed display your own thoughts on the matter, may well ‘trigger’ a female reader into disgust thereby deeply offending her.
I think you left a bit of a gap here when you leapt to this in comment #8
I suggest you burn your energy in submissions to the powers that be regarding the liberty of free speech legislation.
In the first case you are talking about rights.
And you are talking about having become a father.
But in the second case the liberty to express an opinion undefined by any right to do so.
What I see not being said here is something along the lines of what used to be the saying: A women’s politics should not extend beyond her husband’s gate.
But said in the form unequal rights; A father’s rights should not extend beyond the gate of any mother of his children.
With due respect you’ve taken a major shift position and that needs to be explained.
Comment by Boonie — Thu 27th June 2019 @ 10:43 am
#12 this is a situation that has and does exist.
Looking back at the publication of Court of Injustice. The National President of UOF at that time had the magazine thrown at him in the witness stand because of the opinion he expressed ‘on behalf of the organization’ offended some women.
The journalist got chased out of the country for her trouble.
The Family Court, Select Committees, even parliament is already not only a filter of opinion but a collection point of information for retribution and retribution.
There’s a question of what’s everybody’s business and what’s nobody elses’s business. In answering the question of free speech, that doesn’t necessarily answer the question of father’s rights especially when feminists hide behide the Criminal Bar of Parliament claiming deformation for the civil distress caused.
Sure I agree with the fight for ‘freedom of speech’ but it was the ‘Union’ of Fathers that allowed its members to express themselves and their opinions as fathers. Without that individuals were liable to isolation and persecution if we didn’t intervene.
Freedom of Speech if and when it’s published would be a step in getting some where with Father’s Rights which we are still going backwards on.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 27th June 2019 @ 11:16 am
As an atheist and agnostic I have no time at all for religious statements.
Great opening statement.
Yah created Man then made wo-man (out of Man).
Man does not control wife they both partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil … and the earth turns corrupt as a result.
As to free speech for Hu-mans. see monster.
Life is about terms not words. Use the right terms. Man as opposed to human, mankind as opposed to person. Right as opposed to application ie application to register (re gist er ) a birth.
Birth includes a stillbirth but not a still born child. (registration of birth = PERSON BORN.(legal fiction)
Life begins at conception. (an absolute)
Abortion is murder.
Knowledge is the perspective between right and wrong (ie absolutes)
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge (following vain machinations and not absolutes)
Stupidity is having the knowledge and choosing to act in ignorance.
Please your honour; which of the three are you?
Comment by Robert McCabe — Mon 27th January 2020 @ 6:54 pm
Had to read three times the post above… I still am bemused.
Good thing though, made me read the original post again and noted something I missed before:
“Freedom of speech means the freedom to express your thoughts regarding any subject you believe to have merit providing you have not voluntarily given up that right to your employer or any other agent.”
This is where the achilles heels of our brainwashed logic is
“…providing you have not voluntarily given up that right …”
Freedom of speech is inalienable.
It can only be curtailed by self reserve and not by contract.
Comment by JustCurious — Tue 28th January 2020 @ 6:57 pm