So your criteria is whether or not a history of abuse by members of a religion has been recorded, in doling out who deserves "the prisonermonkeys human rights protection seal of approval"? Wow, your Muslims are screwed.
You specifically asked about a parliamentary inquiry into Scientology, clearly trying to show that I was a hypocrite. I replied by pointing out that Scientologists have a documented history of abuse as a matter of policy; therefore, a parliamentary inquiry into their activities certainly bears merit. Now you're trying to infer that this is completely unreasonable behaviour, once again moving the goalposts based on whatever point you're trying to make.
Under your logic, the royal commission into institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse should not take place because the rights of paedophiles might be abused.
And that's what we call a straw man argument.
I bet he agrees with you, the point is other "religions" have had the same issues so why are others protected from criticism and others not?
Who is even saying this, are you suggesting Scientologists have the Monopoly on crazy people.
It's what we call a comparison using the same standard
Ever heard of "fair game"? It's a policy introduced by the Church of Scientology that says that if someone criticises them, then church members are free to do anything to discourage them. Bullying, intimidation, and criminal harassment are all encouraged.
Show me the policies of Islam that say fair game - or its like - is considered acceptable.
It's not the same standard at all.
Even if he was correct and the two were comparable, he's still ignoring the massive differences between parliamentary inquiry and royal commission - and, more to the point, the motivations behind Xenophon and Hanson's comments. Xenophon clearly wanted an investigation for the purposes of informing policy, whereas Hanson was clearly angling for a pretext to ban Islam, or at least use the legal system to block the construction of mosques, ban headscarves, put in place quotas on Muslim migration, and effectively criminalise practising Islam.
Do I need to explain why direct comparisons are inappropriate? We just went through that.
Actually, all we saw was some blather about the differences between "parliamentary inquiry" and "royal commission" and something about motivations for comments.
This is what you ran with before thinking that you'd be better off pitting royal commission and parliamentary inquiry against each other rather than Scientology and Islam against each other.
And now what we're seeing is you disregarding points that are inconvenient to you.
This is what happens when you put the cart before the horse. You wanted to steer the conversation in a particular direction, and so disregarded anything inconvenient. You talk about "the hypocrisy of a predetermined attitude", as if Xenophon and Hanson were asking for exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason - except they weren't. Now that I have pointed out that there is a world of difference between the two and thus incomparable, you're insisting that I am weaseling out of it, despite the fact that the difference between a parliamentary inquiry and a royal commission is so great that you could drive a bus between them.
I think that's what you meant to say. Because that's what you mean by "self-reflection", right? There's no actual reflection involved; you just think that I should read my post, then read your post, then read my post again, and come to the conclusion that you were right all along.
That's now an after the fact bit. The difference could have been relevant, yet your mind went straight to Scientology vs Islam. It was telling, and demonstrated my suspicion.
I fail to see how you could have the original discussion without accounting for the differences between parliamentary inquiries and royal commissions, given that they are structured differently, operate differently and perform completely different functions. And that's before we even take into consideration the scope of each proposal. Now, if Xenophon and Hanson had both been calling for a parliamentary inquiry, or if they had both been calling for a royal commission, you might have a point. As it is, the only thing that they have in common is that politicians were calling for them.
What a government does or doesn't do should have no bearing on what we hold as representative of equity. Looking at "what happened next" is an entirely pointless exercise when talking about rights.
.... then still walked right in to the waiting snare anyway......
Sure. If you disregard the way they were treated equally. But I guess that bearing that point in mind would disprove the entire argument that you're trying to make.
Except that one isn't getting protection while the other is not. Once again, you're consciously neglecting the point. Scientology has a policy whereby members are fully encouraged to engage in threatening behaviour and criminal intimidation. Given the extent and the degree to which this is being orchestrated, they are clearly operating with the consent and the approval of the institution. If Scientologists are being subject to public scrutiny and prosecuted for their actions, it's not because they're Scientologists - it's because they're breaking the law.
Are you sure about that....
Luckily for the coach, so far anyway, lot of support on social media and at least one player is behind him:
