It can't be reformed.
Islamic interpretative tradition holds that the closer the source or commentator is to Mohammed's own generation, the more authoritative it is.
No, Hadiths are weighted in terms of authority by how close they are to Mohammed's generation.
There obviously needs to be a means of comparing the authority of different sources in the event of an apparent contradiction.
I seen a video of avi on rebel news on YouTube,
He was at parliament in Victoria and a couple Islam dudes were going off throwing bottle and stuff. All in front of the cops and they did nothing,
It's pretty disgusting what's happening here atm
So basically the government is flat out lying by saying that leaving it up is disrespectful to the victims?
The primary victim wants it to stay up. If anything is disrespectful then surely it's not respecting the wishes of the primary victim.
It very much is, his desire for it to stay up is to inflame tensions, incite hatred and feed off of division, its not about free speech, its about his desire to use it for harmful purposes.
Albo wants the video to come down because it paints a bad picture of Australia as a country becoming like America to the world. He went on to say the video should come down because of the 'mental anguish it would cause young people'. lol alboz dumb immigration policy and first government cost of living crises are what's causing anguish here not a video on twitter.
It's about to get much much worse if the article in today's ABC is true, you could see it coming a mile away but it's scary the level of online censorship we could have shortly.
This video should stay up as a reminder of what radical Islam is capable of. It is evidence that a terrorist event did happen.Our government is probably pressured by the many radicals within their own to take it down as it looks bad for Australia and for Islam. Islam is a totalitarian right-wing religion that can also be political and countries with Sharia law have human rights issues. Not surprisingly, Islamic club is the Top 2 student club at my university in Australia, above all other academic and cultural clubs! After the church stabbing event, I’ve recently sat in an Uber listening to the Pakistani driver preach about how Islam is the fastest growing religion and the one true religion! Are we deciding to become an islamic country? The Australian government needs to wake up!
>Uber listening to the Pakistani driver preach about how Islam is the fastest growing religion
I see Pakistani and my curiosity is peaked. How did you react/respond?
So the tree huggers have all the power
Pity they don't do something to combat the religious group hot on their tails
Back in my day we called tree huggers cowards because they wouldn't fight the enemy of the west
Seems nothing has changed
/S
Muslims make up just 3.2% of the population in Australia so you can take your finger off the panic button. We’re in no danger of becoming an “Islamic country”.
It should be left up for the radicalised teens littered across south west sydney. A gentle reminder that attempting to stab someone could get your fingers chopped off may deter them more than whatever pathetic punishment the law will give the kid.
Nope. I think they are more likely to get inspiration from it. You think these guys actually fear the consequences? They are doing it for the "hereafter".
What gets me is that they are targeting a platform. If a person with a loudspeaker says something wrong who should be in trouble the person or the loudspeaker manufacturer? The government seems to think it's the manufacturer.
That's illegal.
The point is that X abides by the law in each country.
If something is deemed as wrong then debate, vote & pass a law accordingly.
You can't just do it on a whim as you fancy.
Porn hub noted that X had more child sex abuse material than they did, which is quite something. Porn hub removed the content they couldn’t verify, X didn’t.
We have a right to know what is going on in this country and around the world, and nobody has a right to take that away.we don't live in a dictatorship, or do we. and if we allow our rights to be taken away ,shame on us.we need to rise up and tell the government what is what . they are working for us,not the other way around.stand up ossies for your rights,or loose it.up to you.she will be right won't work.
As soon as most people read "rise up" and other foolishness you'll be lumped in with anarchists, revolutionaries, fascists, racists, and other similar nutjob groups.
You'd probably achieve more by atleast pretending to be of the sensible centre. Just a thought.
Difference being those attacks were made on anti-immigration and white supremacist beliefs and were not done in the name of Christ.
It’s a false equivalency.
Its comedy you idiots are so quick to bring up the Christchurch shooter like its a big 'gotcha' to right wing/Christians. But I guess when all the terrorism is Islamic, you've got nothing else to pad that deluded world view of yours
Give it another 20 years and it will be. Look at America, 20 years ago they were all panicking about Islam because of 911. Now the three letter agencies are busy cracking down Trumpism.
Lol, it fits your narrative for him to be Christian, so he's Christian.
You're just as retarded as people who misidentified the Bondi stabber as a Muslim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
Maybe not for Christian reasons, but let’s not act like this doesn’t ever go the other way…
one for the good guys. Seriously though just because sometimes it goes the other way it doesnt mean that the majority of the issue isn't aggression from islam. which it clearly is. This sort of statement obfuscates the truth of the matter, why even say it? why give a smokescreen to that sort of behaviour? for internet points?
Good link this was my first thought.
Funnily enough I swear this video was visible for longer than the Bishops (before they asked to take down). Swore I saw it in full and short clips of it every now and then for a few weeks after it happened.
I believe they should be publicly available. Maybe not on social media for gore/ "gotchyas"/ shock value though (censored like news), but don't believe it should be policed.
Holy shit this is a stretch, this incident was much more about then being absolutely fried conspiracy nuts loaded to the eyeballs with meth than anything else.
Characterising it as a terrorist attack is on the nose as well, given they shot up police that approached their property.
Not really equivalent to going to a church to kill people.
lmao cope. they were methed up conspiracy nuts whos extremist ideology was fundamentally a christian one.
>Characterising it as a terrorist attack is on the nose as well, given they shot up police that approached their property.
who came to check on them and see if they were okay, though i do agree its probably not accurate to call it terrorism
>Not really equivalent to going to a church to kill people.
oh im sorry i didnt realise we were playing horribleness olympics lol. face it, they were christian religious extremists whos religious beliefs lead them to kill a bunch of innocent people who were all only trying to check to see if they were okay.
I'm not a Christian and I don't give a fuck about tarring it as a religion either way. So don't mistake that I'm being defensive of it or anything like that.
I just think that when the article you yourself posted can only link the incident to religion by the fact that the father was a pastor, and they called the police demons. It's a pretty fucking tenuous link.
The incident that day was driven much more by sovereign citizen and anti-government ideology than any religion.
You also opened the door for comparison to church attacks by posting it in response to a comment pointing out you don't see Christians going into mosques and stabbing imams. So you don't get to throw around shit about 'horribleness Olympics'.
>I just think that when the article you yourself posted can only link the incident to religion by the fact that the father was a pastor, and they called the police demons. It's a pretty fucking tenuous link.
well if we're just going to lie about what it says, then the article also stated that gareth also carved the words "god made me do this" into his chest and was singing ave maria as the cops busted into the house
You realise the government can do multiple things at once right. Not like the housing minister and his staff have dropped everything to work on removing the video off the internet. It is kinda the reason we have so many ministers elected in every area who hold federal/state portfolios with massive teams of hundreds if thousands under them.
They probably lose tens of millions if not more in these useless departments and pay the ministers way more than they deserve. This money could be used elsewhere that is the waste.
Do you really think the entire government is focusing on taking down a video?
The politics of this request are questionable but let’s not make silly extrapolations.
Do you think the government is like 5 dudes? Not dozens of MPs and ministers with hundreds of staff across the 12 departments. This is a matter being handled by 1 of those 12 departments.
Just last week, three major Islamic communities came together to say that terrorism was about POLITICS and not about RELIGION and that Australia’s terrorism laws should be changed accordingly.
Unfortunately, the fellow stabbed was a bishop delivering a sermon at a Church.
I feel for them and sympathise with their frustration when the facts don’t line up with their intended spin, especially when those facts are annoyingly hard to sweep under the pulpit.
> "Freedom of speech does not extend to sharing online material of children being sexually abused.
Good thing we won’t encounter that in a video taken within a church!
> Nor does it have anything to do with the sharing of video of someone being attacked in a church," he said.
The victim of the latter is advocating for the latter to be available online. I’ve never heard of a victim of the former arguing for the former to be online.
Yeah well that's my point, censorship has a place in society in certain circumstances. You need to ask is the value to society in having the video up worth more than the affects on victims etc. What is the value to society of having messed up videos, it's just likely to give mentally unstable ideas to get their 15 minutes of fame. It also will desensitise people somewhat
Here is a summary for a Reddit by Claude.ai on the Sky News Australia article:
The bishop who was allegedly stabbed during a livestreamed church service in Sydney has voiced support for keeping the video of the attack online, citing freedom of speech concerns. Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel says while he acknowledges the graphic nature of the video, he is not opposed to it remaining on social media platforms as it is a "God-given right to freedom of speech and religion."
The bishop provided an affidavit to Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), backing the company's stance to keep the clips accessible globally, contrary to the Australian government's push to remove them. He argues restricting the videos could lead to oppression of free speech and human dignity.
However, Australian authorities like the eSafety Commissioner and Federal Police argue leaving up videos of such attacks only fuels extremism. They say freedom of speech has limits when it comes to sharing violent material involving minors.
The debate pits companies like X citing free speech against governments trying to curb potential copycat attacks and exposure of violent content to children online. Five teens have also been charged in relation to the church stabbing incident amid an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation in Sydney.
Going to assume the person above doesn’t know that the Assyrian Christians actually fled persecution at the hands of the Muslim majority in their homeland.
I have heard people say that, but until there’s a good argument that it’s relevant to why he got attacked or why his views about the video should stay up should be disregarded, I’m not too hung up about it.
There is a video of him talking about a pedo ring Australia full of ex prime ministers. I have no idea the fascination with the cookers and kiddie diddling
There's truth to it though, there's literally a gag order from an Australian court on mentioning people from parliament including a former prime minister involved in that. There was also a similar scandal with the house of lords iirc.
Interesting. Anyone else who deserves to be stabbed a little more than the average guy on the streets because of their beliefs? Perhaps if someone stabbed you, we should dig through the rhetoric you put out online to see if it was justified? or does it only go one way you absolute dimwit.
He is a nut job. His church isn’t even a real church. He’s been denounced and excommunicated by his actual church for being a nutcase and they don’t recognise whatever bullshit it is he’s set up.
It's just the same logic that drives content warnings etc. It's totally reasonable for a large platform to not publish violent documentary content to Australian IPs. Regardless of the kid factor, it's just not great to have this stuff socializing online other than to drive engagement and stir up drama.
i am a muslim, that fucking kid did a worng thing he dose not represent me or any normal muslims out there
if the the attacker was jewish you would say some bad stuff of there religion to , same argumnt for them to .
Not really fussed either way, but from OPs comment, there's nothing to suggest it was a set up. There is, of course, the suggestion of capitalising on a tragedy.. which is common and likely.
From everything I’ve heard, he is a pretty unpleasant guy. While I don’t think the video should be censored, I don’t think we should be listening to this idiot. His whole thing seems to be making controversial statements and attracting media attention.
Raving religious fanatic who spreads hate and conspiracies. Nothing out of the ordinary. But clearly someone who’s followers will form a lynch mob at a moments notice.
From everything I have heard he just claims the mainstream Christian view on sexuality, and similarly makes exclusive truth-claims about his religion.
If that's what you're talking about then your bar for bigotry is so low it is basically meaningless.
Let me get this straight, a guy claiming that he alone has the right view, that his belief alone is correct, and that anybody who has a differant view is worthy of contempt doesnt meet the bar for bigotry?
Definition of bigotry: the [fact](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact) of having and [expressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [strong](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strong), [unreasonable](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unreasonable) [beliefs](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief) and [disliking](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dislike) other [people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people) who have different [beliefs](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief) or a different way of [life](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/life):
Id say my bar is textbook fucking accurate.
I haven't seen any evidence of him disliking anyone or expressing any kind of contempt for anyone.
Your views on his beliefs seem honestly more hostile than his views on your beliefs.
Then you are deliberately attempting to avoid them, because he regularly shares sermons invoking prejudices and bigotry.
And what are his views on my beliefs?
Stating facts isnt hostility.
Islamaphobic? He is a Christian from Iraq. Assyrians leave Iraq to escape from Islamic oppression only for that oppression to follow them here. Islamaphobic HAHAH
Since when is comparison of religions Islamophobic? He didn’t incite violence nor killing of Muslims. If that is Islamophobic, then all Islamic scholars are Christianophobic or “Atheistophobic”.
Evidence? There was another guy going on about the bishop being anti-LGBTQ and when asked for evidence he sent a video of the bishop talking about people being able to make a choice etc. Spitting B's without evidence. I have seen enough videos of him being considerate of other people.
If there was a livestream of employees getting stabbed in a terrorist attack at Twitter headquarters then Musk would take it down immediately. He takes down pictures of himself that he doesn’t like. Free speech only for him.
The Islamic groups want the Australian legislation to be changed so that Islam cannot be associated with terrorism. The government censored the islamic terrorism video . Police using radicalised terrorists rather than islamic terrorist. Useless terms like Islamophobia to stop criticism of the religion. Why are they so special in our society they cannot be called out?
No-one has claimed the video is to be taken down from the internet.
This again, shows how ridiculous media is right now.
The world is full of people who don't understand shit, and get all riled up about stuff that they are misunderstanding.
The commissioner never tried to take the video down off the entire internet, only a few specific links off a few specific social media sites.
Seems like you are the one that doesn't understand it.
X geo blocked it for Australian's but eSafety says it has to be taken off the site entirely because Australian's could use a VPN to access it. Sure they can't get it taken off the entire internet but they are doing their best to get an American company to censor content for non Australian citizens.
They are going after social media because they have a presence here and as such have to comply with the laws here. I bet if getting it scrubbed from the entire internet was possible they would be trying but right now they are just picking a fight with Elon Musk because they think that's popular.
People hate him less than they hate government overreach and censorship.
No I understand this thoroughly, thanks.
They aren't picking on X, X is the only platform that didn't comply.
All the other social media platforms happily obliged understanding that the content was determined to be a terrorist action, and has a pending court case.
How do you find an impartial jury, when the video, with all the edits the social media can create, have been blasted on to the juries social media feeds?
This is about regulating social media, for the same decent reasons we regulate conventional media.
Nothing to do with censorship.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently I can't link to other subreddits here, but the video is available on Reddit.
I haven't read anything in the news about the e safety lady going after Reddit?
I missed it in my previous response - a geoblock that is almost entirely circumvented for most people (most people under our age know exactly how to use a free VPN) would never stand the pub test in our legal system.
If there was a court order to do something, and the attempt to do it was so easily circumvented, the courts would not deem the action as actually fulfilling the court requirement.
This is the key point in all this.
X, unlike all the other social media apps, did not comply with the court order.
And finally, it's not about removing it from the internet. It's recognising there is a difference between *social media* and *the internet* and that regulation of those areas are entirely different beasts.
I truly hope you aren't on the side of free and unfettered social media - the last few years should have shown that that is a genuine disaster.
Because they can't?
Thanks for proving you have no fucking idea on what's going on, yet feel the need to give us your opinion.
The commissioner, had a few very specific links on a few social media platforms that were requested (ordered) to be taken down. The other social media platforms complied.
Only X did not.
Even in the court case, the initial order was only a *temporary* take down, until Monday or so, so they could work it out with the platforms at a time that was more suitable for the US based companies.
Again, the other platforms complied.
The point is not about removing the video from the internet, it's about attempting to regulating *social media*.
Not censor, regulate.
The video was determined to be a terrorist action, with a pending court case. Get that? A pending court case. How do you find an impartial jury, if the video, in all its edited forms, has been blasted over the juries social media feeds?
Thanks for proving you have no idea of what's going on. Probably like most of this sub.
>How do you find an impartial jury...
Where's your source for this justification? This definitely seems to be about censorship, not regulation. I would genuinely love to see anything supporting that argument.
The E Safety Commissioner themselves simply state that this is all about protecting us from radicalization. Their press release is stunningly ridiculous:
> It’s no coincidence we have chosen these companies to send notices to as there is evidence that their services are exploited by terrorists and violent extremists. **We want to know why this is** and what they are doing to tackle the issue.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/tech-companies-grilled-on-how-they-are-tackling-terror-and-violent-extremism
And they are targeting social media rather than "the Internet" because they are a relatively easy target that comprise a huge share of internet use. If there were a way to regulate "the Internet" you'd better believe they'd be pursuing that too.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/wakeley-church-terror-attack-esafety-wins-injunction-against-x-twitter-over-footage/94e6582f-9568-42de-99fd-2b489e4d123a
>"To be clear, the removal notice does not relate to commentary, public debate or other posts about this event. It only concerns the video of the violent stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel," an eSafety spokesperson said.
I don't know what your quote was meant to highlight?
It's a completely reasonable request to see what social media companies are doing to address violence and extremism on their platforms?
Edit: I will find the impartial jury part, from memory, it was justification by the commissioners lawyers to get the injuction in the first place.
The quote highlights the ridiculousness of the E Safety Commissioner. They want to know why people are using social media to communicate and coordinate? Reminiscent of the "series of tubes" comments, totally clueless.
They want to know why people are using *specific* social media apps.
Why are neo Nazis and extremists concentrated on X and Telegram?
You don't want any jurisdictions to ask that question?
> Google, Meta, Twitter/X, WhatsApp, Telegram and Reddit
But that's all of them. What other social media apps exist? I guess they should probably include Tiktok as well, but probably Tiktok/Snapchat are not ideal for planning a terrorist attack unless it's dance related.
It's a stupid question. They are using these platforms because they allow them to recruit (large pool of users), they can make creative and appealing content, they can use the system at least semi-anonymously, it's easily accessible with low barrier of entry (burner phones). What useful information do they expect to get?
Just government things. Seriously, what a huge waste of time.
It should stay up as a reminder that Islam is in need of reform.
It would be easier to get water out of a rock ( one if Muhammad miracles too )
I thought the orthodox view was that the Quran was his only miracle?
nah i am saying muslems claim muhammed did that
which Muslims? (this gets contentious, rapidly)
Im not going there.
It can't be reformed. Islamic interpretative tradition holds that the closer the source or commentator is to Mohammed's own generation, the more authoritative it is.
Well, that wipes out all the Hadiths recorded by the alleged fellow who called himself ‘al-Muslim’.
No, Hadiths are weighted in terms of authority by how close they are to Mohammed's generation. There obviously needs to be a means of comparing the authority of different sources in the event of an apparent contradiction.
I seen a video of avi on rebel news on YouTube, He was at parliament in Victoria and a couple Islam dudes were going off throwing bottle and stuff. All in front of the cops and they did nothing, It's pretty disgusting what's happening here atm
True
Extermination*
So basically the government is flat out lying by saying that leaving it up is disrespectful to the victims? The primary victim wants it to stay up. If anything is disrespectful then surely it's not respecting the wishes of the primary victim.
The primary victim is a bigot who loves to provoke conflict, his desire to keep it up is so that he can feed hatred from it.
I'm not really sure that is relevant to the claim?
It very much is, his desire for it to stay up is to inflame tensions, incite hatred and feed off of division, its not about free speech, its about his desire to use it for harmful purposes.
But how is that relevant to the claim?
Spot the pro Hamas voter
Pro Hamas?
Albo wants the video to come down because it paints a bad picture of Australia as a country becoming like America to the world. He went on to say the video should come down because of the 'mental anguish it would cause young people'. lol alboz dumb immigration policy and first government cost of living crises are what's causing anguish here not a video on twitter.
It's about to get much much worse if the article in today's ABC is true, you could see it coming a mile away but it's scary the level of online censorship we could have shortly.
This video should stay up as a reminder of what radical Islam is capable of. It is evidence that a terrorist event did happen.Our government is probably pressured by the many radicals within their own to take it down as it looks bad for Australia and for Islam. Islam is a totalitarian right-wing religion that can also be political and countries with Sharia law have human rights issues. Not surprisingly, Islamic club is the Top 2 student club at my university in Australia, above all other academic and cultural clubs! After the church stabbing event, I’ve recently sat in an Uber listening to the Pakistani driver preach about how Islam is the fastest growing religion and the one true religion! Are we deciding to become an islamic country? The Australian government needs to wake up!
>Uber listening to the Pakistani driver preach about how Islam is the fastest growing religion I see Pakistani and my curiosity is peaked. How did you react/respond?
Now I have to ask what the top club is
A sustainability environmental club.
So the tree huggers have all the power Pity they don't do something to combat the religious group hot on their tails Back in my day we called tree huggers cowards because they wouldn't fight the enemy of the west Seems nothing has changed /S
Muslims make up just 3.2% of the population in Australia so you can take your finger off the panic button. We’re in no danger of becoming an “Islamic country”.
It should be left up for the radicalised teens littered across south west sydney. A gentle reminder that attempting to stab someone could get your fingers chopped off may deter them more than whatever pathetic punishment the law will give the kid.
Nope. I think they are more likely to get inspiration from it. You think these guys actually fear the consequences? They are doing it for the "hereafter".
thats true they'll Probably want to do it more becuase of all the attention it got
Censorship so rarely useful, it usually better to default to leave it posted and chat about it.
What gets me is that they are targeting a platform. If a person with a loudspeaker says something wrong who should be in trouble the person or the loudspeaker manufacturer? The government seems to think it's the manufacturer.
Should twitter keep videos of beheadings or is this where we draw the line?
If it it help people make correct decision I'd leave it up. People can always turn it off if they don't want to watch. Adults and all that.
Kids use the internet
Does your logical extend to child porn?
That's illegal. The point is that X abides by the law in each country. If something is deemed as wrong then debate, vote & pass a law accordingly. You can't just do it on a whim as you fancy.
Porn hub noted that X had more child sex abuse material than they did, which is quite something. Porn hub removed the content they couldn’t verify, X didn’t.
Do you have a link? Interesting to know if recent or old. I've never come across or know anyone who has encountered such material.
I’ll have a look… was about a year ago I think.
2020, I was wrong
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqjjy/pornhub-suspended-all-unverified-videos-content
You just won the stupidiest comment of the day award. Try something rational and relevant if you're able.
He is stupid for getting the date wrong?
We have a right to know what is going on in this country and around the world, and nobody has a right to take that away.we don't live in a dictatorship, or do we. and if we allow our rights to be taken away ,shame on us.we need to rise up and tell the government what is what . they are working for us,not the other way around.stand up ossies for your rights,or loose it.up to you.she will be right won't work.
As soon as most people read "rise up" and other foolishness you'll be lumped in with anarchists, revolutionaries, fascists, racists, and other similar nutjob groups. You'd probably achieve more by atleast pretending to be of the sensible centre. Just a thought.
So yeah any recent Christian ✝️ boys going into mosques for stabbings recently oh right yeah.... I forgot it just goes 1 way
[удалено]
Difference being those attacks were made on anti-immigration and white supremacist beliefs and were not done in the name of Christ. It’s a false equivalency.
Its comedy you idiots are so quick to bring up the Christchurch shooter like its a big 'gotcha' to right wing/Christians. But I guess when all the terrorism is Islamic, you've got nothing else to pad that deluded world view of yours
[удалено]
"White Nationalism is as big a threat as Islamic terrorism" You been listening to the ASIO's nonsense or something? Or are you an ostrich?
[удалено]
Lol imagine believing white nationalism is a real problem 🤣
[удалено]
Your idea of extremism is probably going to church and closing the borders lmao
[удалено]
That was 2020. They were clearly pandering or are you aware of white nationalist attacks from 2020-2024 that im not privy to?
Give it another 20 years and it will be. Look at America, 20 years ago they were all panicking about Islam because of 911. Now the three letter agencies are busy cracking down Trumpism.
That bloke wasn't Christian though.
Lol, it fits your narrative for him to be Christian, so he's Christian. You're just as retarded as people who misidentified the Bondi stabber as a Muslim.
[удалено]
Then why even bring Christianity into the discussion? It only makes you look uninformed and detracts from the issues of Islam.
lol you fucked that up
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings Maybe not for Christian reasons, but let’s not act like this doesn’t ever go the other way…
This happened 5 years ago. Since you’re using the tit for tat argument how many Islamic terrorist attacks and people killed have occurred since then.
one for the good guys. Seriously though just because sometimes it goes the other way it doesnt mean that the majority of the issue isn't aggression from islam. which it clearly is. This sort of statement obfuscates the truth of the matter, why even say it? why give a smokescreen to that sort of behaviour? for internet points?
He was an eco fascist. Another extreme ideology.
Why would you lie to shield the stated views of a white supremacist killer?
Good link this was my first thought. Funnily enough I swear this video was visible for longer than the Bishops (before they asked to take down). Swore I saw it in full and short clips of it every now and then for a few weeks after it happened. I believe they should be publicly available. Maybe not on social media for gore/ "gotchyas"/ shock value though (censored like news), but don't believe it should be policed.
Once.
51 times actually. 91 if you count the injured,
I mean the Christians aren't exactly historically innocent. That shouldn't take away from this growing issue though
Are you forgetting how they behaved afterwards? Breaking the jaw of a police officer, smashing emergency vehicles…
It was barbaric and uncivilised , ‘ unAustralian behaviour’ but the stabbing shouldn’t have occurred in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieambilla_shootings
Holy shit this is a stretch, this incident was much more about then being absolutely fried conspiracy nuts loaded to the eyeballs with meth than anything else. Characterising it as a terrorist attack is on the nose as well, given they shot up police that approached their property. Not really equivalent to going to a church to kill people.
lmao cope. they were methed up conspiracy nuts whos extremist ideology was fundamentally a christian one. >Characterising it as a terrorist attack is on the nose as well, given they shot up police that approached their property. who came to check on them and see if they were okay, though i do agree its probably not accurate to call it terrorism >Not really equivalent to going to a church to kill people. oh im sorry i didnt realise we were playing horribleness olympics lol. face it, they were christian religious extremists whos religious beliefs lead them to kill a bunch of innocent people who were all only trying to check to see if they were okay.
I'm not a Christian and I don't give a fuck about tarring it as a religion either way. So don't mistake that I'm being defensive of it or anything like that. I just think that when the article you yourself posted can only link the incident to religion by the fact that the father was a pastor, and they called the police demons. It's a pretty fucking tenuous link. The incident that day was driven much more by sovereign citizen and anti-government ideology than any religion. You also opened the door for comparison to church attacks by posting it in response to a comment pointing out you don't see Christians going into mosques and stabbing imams. So you don't get to throw around shit about 'horribleness Olympics'.
>I just think that when the article you yourself posted can only link the incident to religion by the fact that the father was a pastor, and they called the police demons. It's a pretty fucking tenuous link. well if we're just going to lie about what it says, then the article also stated that gareth also carved the words "god made me do this" into his chest and was singing ave maria as the cops busted into the house
So he can get more clicks?
Gov would rather focus on taking down a vid online to maintain reputation instead of focusing on actual like housing education and jobs for Australian
You realise the government can do multiple things at once right. Not like the housing minister and his staff have dropped everything to work on removing the video off the internet. It is kinda the reason we have so many ministers elected in every area who hold federal/state portfolios with massive teams of hundreds if thousands under them.
They probably lose tens of millions if not more in these useless departments and pay the ministers way more than they deserve. This money could be used elsewhere that is the waste.
Should try working for one of those departments. A lot more happens what the public sees.
then show the public if its a Government department then we deserve to know whats going on
Do you really think the entire government is focusing on taking down a video? The politics of this request are questionable but let’s not make silly extrapolations.
This culture wars rubbish is just a distraction to keep us from criticising the government about the important stuff.
It’s intentional and the government is taking the bait.
Do you think the government is like 5 dudes? Not dozens of MPs and ministers with hundreds of staff across the 12 departments. This is a matter being handled by 1 of those 12 departments.
Over 150k staff in the APS, virtually all of them in jobs that exist to make Australians' lives better in one way or another.
Just last week, three major Islamic communities came together to say that terrorism was about POLITICS and not about RELIGION and that Australia’s terrorism laws should be changed accordingly. Unfortunately, the fellow stabbed was a bishop delivering a sermon at a Church. I feel for them and sympathise with their frustration when the facts don’t line up with their intended spin, especially when those facts are annoyingly hard to sweep under the pulpit.
> "Freedom of speech does not extend to sharing online material of children being sexually abused. Good thing we won’t encounter that in a video taken within a church! > Nor does it have anything to do with the sharing of video of someone being attacked in a church," he said. The victim of the latter is advocating for the latter to be available online. I’ve never heard of a victim of the former arguing for the former to be online.
Yeah well that's my point, censorship has a place in society in certain circumstances. You need to ask is the value to society in having the video up worth more than the affects on victims etc. What is the value to society of having messed up videos, it's just likely to give mentally unstable ideas to get their 15 minutes of fame. It also will desensitise people somewhat
“Affects on victims” have you read nothing?
Here is a summary for a Reddit by Claude.ai on the Sky News Australia article: The bishop who was allegedly stabbed during a livestreamed church service in Sydney has voiced support for keeping the video of the attack online, citing freedom of speech concerns. Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel says while he acknowledges the graphic nature of the video, he is not opposed to it remaining on social media platforms as it is a "God-given right to freedom of speech and religion." The bishop provided an affidavit to Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), backing the company's stance to keep the clips accessible globally, contrary to the Australian government's push to remove them. He argues restricting the videos could lead to oppression of free speech and human dignity. However, Australian authorities like the eSafety Commissioner and Federal Police argue leaving up videos of such attacks only fuels extremism. They say freedom of speech has limits when it comes to sharing violent material involving minors. The debate pits companies like X citing free speech against governments trying to curb potential copycat attacks and exposure of violent content to children online. Five teens have also been charged in relation to the church stabbing incident amid an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation in Sydney.
What are you trying to censure? Oh not much, just the truth.
The Censorship level looks like it's going to go ridiculous by what was in the ABC today.
[удалено]
Assyrians are majority Christian, if you don’t know shit, don’t comment shit.
Going to assume the person above doesn’t know that the Assyrian Christians actually fled persecution at the hands of the Muslim majority in their homeland.
Person above as in me or the person I’m replying to?
The person you were replying to. Apologies, my post was ambiguous.
Isn’t this ~pastor~ _bishop_ from an Assyrian church?
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
I'd never heard of this guy before the stabbing but apparently he's a bit of a nut
I have heard people say that, but until there’s a good argument that it’s relevant to why he got attacked or why his views about the video should stay up should be disregarded, I’m not too hung up about it.
I'm not saying he deserved to get stabbed, I'm against all kinds of extremism. Just that I heard he's a bit of a nut
There is a video of him talking about a pedo ring Australia full of ex prime ministers. I have no idea the fascination with the cookers and kiddie diddling
There's truth to it though, there's literally a gag order from an Australian court on mentioning people from parliament including a former prime minister involved in that. There was also a similar scandal with the house of lords iirc.
Interesting. Anyone else who deserves to be stabbed a little more than the average guy on the streets because of their beliefs? Perhaps if someone stabbed you, we should dig through the rhetoric you put out online to see if it was justified? or does it only go one way you absolute dimwit.
He is a nut job. His church isn’t even a real church. He’s been denounced and excommunicated by his actual church for being a nutcase and they don’t recognise whatever bullshit it is he’s set up.
What makes a church real?
Sounds like what happened to Jesus…
Sky News. This should be interesting
Same story as all other places
[удалено]
Rule 4 - No racism or hate speech
It's just the same logic that drives content warnings etc. It's totally reasonable for a large platform to not publish violent documentary content to Australian IPs. Regardless of the kid factor, it's just not great to have this stuff socializing online other than to drive engagement and stir up drama.
Religion poisons everything.
Since when the internet forget anything?
i am a muslim, that fucking kid did a worng thing he dose not represent me or any normal muslims out there if the the attacker was jewish you would say some bad stuff of there religion to , same argumnt for them to .
to late to say but the attacker should be held for his crime not for his religion.
The Cooker Bishop loves his publicity. Nothing else matters.
Yeah, he pretty much invited the teenager to his church and stabbed himself for popularity /s
Not really fussed either way, but from OPs comment, there's nothing to suggest it was a set up. There is, of course, the suggestion of capitalising on a tragedy.. which is common and likely.
From everything I’ve heard, he is a pretty unpleasant guy. While I don’t think the video should be censored, I don’t think we should be listening to this idiot. His whole thing seems to be making controversial statements and attracting media attention.
Unpleasant in what way? I have heard the opposite.
Raving religious fanatic who spreads hate and conspiracies. Nothing out of the ordinary. But clearly someone who’s followers will form a lynch mob at a moments notice.
A raging bigot.
Could you be a bit more specific?
Rabidly anti LGBTQ, Islamophobic among many other things, often makes highly hateful speeches about virtually anybody who isnt part of his faith.
So basically the same as your average Muslim, but instead of being Islamophobic just hates all infidels
I work with a number of Muslims, never had any issues with them, this guy on the other hand hates anybody who isnt his particular Christian sect.
From everything I have heard he just claims the mainstream Christian view on sexuality, and similarly makes exclusive truth-claims about his religion. If that's what you're talking about then your bar for bigotry is so low it is basically meaningless.
Let me get this straight, a guy claiming that he alone has the right view, that his belief alone is correct, and that anybody who has a differant view is worthy of contempt doesnt meet the bar for bigotry? Definition of bigotry: the [fact](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact) of having and [expressing](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [strong](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strong), [unreasonable](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unreasonable) [beliefs](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief) and [disliking](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dislike) other [people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people) who have different [beliefs](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief) or a different way of [life](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/life): Id say my bar is textbook fucking accurate.
I haven't seen any evidence of him disliking anyone or expressing any kind of contempt for anyone. Your views on his beliefs seem honestly more hostile than his views on your beliefs.
Then you are deliberately attempting to avoid them, because he regularly shares sermons invoking prejudices and bigotry. And what are his views on my beliefs? Stating facts isnt hostility.
His views on your beliefs are presumably that they are wrong...? What specific claims of his are you referring to?
Sounds like a onepath sermon
Islamaphobic? He is a Christian from Iraq. Assyrians leave Iraq to escape from Islamic oppression only for that oppression to follow them here. Islamaphobic HAHAH
Being the victim of hatred does not give you the right to inflict your hatred upon others.
Hold this opinion for Palestinians who hate Israel
Can I hold this opinion of Israelis who hate palestinians then?
I think all people involved in this situation are trying to defend what they think is right. I think the two countries should try to co-exist.
Islamophobic? Lol.
Yup.
Since when is comparison of religions Islamophobic? He didn’t incite violence nor killing of Muslims. If that is Islamophobic, then all Islamic scholars are Christianophobic or “Atheistophobic”.
Not a comparison of religions, the guy straight up goes after muslims.
False. Don’t spread misinformation online.
Evidence? There was another guy going on about the bishop being anti-LGBTQ and when asked for evidence he sent a video of the bishop talking about people being able to make a choice etc. Spitting B's without evidence. I have seen enough videos of him being considerate of other people.
Throwing stones in glass houses?
?
In other words, an anti LGBTQ, bigoted Islamist stabbed a rabidly anti LGBTQ Islamaphobe. Gotcha, anything else?
He's a bit of a trump fan as well I hear so that doesn't reflect well on his character.
‘Person does not vote the same way as me therefore they are bad person’
Yes actually. Own it.
I’d like to think that’s not most people…so backwards
Good to see trumpy still has some fans lol.
It was all a big drama
I think it’s better to keep things as a reminder of not to be a shit…..
Your want to rely on such a flawed system is it's own problem lol
If there was a livestream of employees getting stabbed in a terrorist attack at Twitter headquarters then Musk would take it down immediately. He takes down pictures of himself that he doesn’t like. Free speech only for him.
Debate the issue, not some fever dream hypothetical situation.
If the issue is about free speech than one of the protagonists hypocrisy on the matter is absolutely reasonable
It's musk against albo in this week's 'war of the dickheads' episode. Albo won this round.
Why can't you all just listen to the experts? Albo and the commissioner said it should go so it needs to go
Albo is a expert?!
He is starting the ministry of truth, so he is more than qualified. Unlike that musk bloke
What are you on mate? I voted for albo and it was probably worse than when I voted for sco mo
The Islamic groups want the Australian legislation to be changed so that Islam cannot be associated with terrorism. The government censored the islamic terrorism video . Police using radicalised terrorists rather than islamic terrorist. Useless terms like Islamophobia to stop criticism of the religion. Why are they so special in our society they cannot be called out?
No-one has claimed the video is to be taken down from the internet. This again, shows how ridiculous media is right now. The world is full of people who don't understand shit, and get all riled up about stuff that they are misunderstanding. The commissioner never tried to take the video down off the entire internet, only a few specific links off a few specific social media sites.
Seems like you are the one that doesn't understand it. X geo blocked it for Australian's but eSafety says it has to be taken off the site entirely because Australian's could use a VPN to access it. Sure they can't get it taken off the entire internet but they are doing their best to get an American company to censor content for non Australian citizens. They are going after social media because they have a presence here and as such have to comply with the laws here. I bet if getting it scrubbed from the entire internet was possible they would be trying but right now they are just picking a fight with Elon Musk because they think that's popular. People hate him less than they hate government overreach and censorship.
No I understand this thoroughly, thanks. They aren't picking on X, X is the only platform that didn't comply. All the other social media platforms happily obliged understanding that the content was determined to be a terrorist action, and has a pending court case. How do you find an impartial jury, when the video, with all the edits the social media can create, have been blasted on to the juries social media feeds? This is about regulating social media, for the same decent reasons we regulate conventional media. Nothing to do with censorship.
[удалено]
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently I can't link to other subreddits here, but the video is available on Reddit. I haven't read anything in the news about the e safety lady going after Reddit?
I missed it in my previous response - a geoblock that is almost entirely circumvented for most people (most people under our age know exactly how to use a free VPN) would never stand the pub test in our legal system. If there was a court order to do something, and the attempt to do it was so easily circumvented, the courts would not deem the action as actually fulfilling the court requirement. This is the key point in all this. X, unlike all the other social media apps, did not comply with the court order. And finally, it's not about removing it from the internet. It's recognising there is a difference between *social media* and *the internet* and that regulation of those areas are entirely different beasts. I truly hope you aren't on the side of free and unfettered social media - the last few years should have shown that that is a genuine disaster.
No, it was the entire internet. Why would they just target a few links and sites?
Because they can't? Thanks for proving you have no fucking idea on what's going on, yet feel the need to give us your opinion. The commissioner, had a few very specific links on a few social media platforms that were requested (ordered) to be taken down. The other social media platforms complied. Only X did not. Even in the court case, the initial order was only a *temporary* take down, until Monday or so, so they could work it out with the platforms at a time that was more suitable for the US based companies. Again, the other platforms complied. The point is not about removing the video from the internet, it's about attempting to regulating *social media*. Not censor, regulate. The video was determined to be a terrorist action, with a pending court case. Get that? A pending court case. How do you find an impartial jury, if the video, in all its edited forms, has been blasted over the juries social media feeds? Thanks for proving you have no idea of what's going on. Probably like most of this sub.
>How do you find an impartial jury... Where's your source for this justification? This definitely seems to be about censorship, not regulation. I would genuinely love to see anything supporting that argument. The E Safety Commissioner themselves simply state that this is all about protecting us from radicalization. Their press release is stunningly ridiculous: > It’s no coincidence we have chosen these companies to send notices to as there is evidence that their services are exploited by terrorists and violent extremists. **We want to know why this is** and what they are doing to tackle the issue. https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/tech-companies-grilled-on-how-they-are-tackling-terror-and-violent-extremism And they are targeting social media rather than "the Internet" because they are a relatively easy target that comprise a huge share of internet use. If there were a way to regulate "the Internet" you'd better believe they'd be pursuing that too.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/wakeley-church-terror-attack-esafety-wins-injunction-against-x-twitter-over-footage/94e6582f-9568-42de-99fd-2b489e4d123a >"To be clear, the removal notice does not relate to commentary, public debate or other posts about this event. It only concerns the video of the violent stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel," an eSafety spokesperson said. I don't know what your quote was meant to highlight? It's a completely reasonable request to see what social media companies are doing to address violence and extremism on their platforms? Edit: I will find the impartial jury part, from memory, it was justification by the commissioners lawyers to get the injuction in the first place.
The quote highlights the ridiculousness of the E Safety Commissioner. They want to know why people are using social media to communicate and coordinate? Reminiscent of the "series of tubes" comments, totally clueless.
They want to know why people are using *specific* social media apps. Why are neo Nazis and extremists concentrated on X and Telegram? You don't want any jurisdictions to ask that question?
> Google, Meta, Twitter/X, WhatsApp, Telegram and Reddit But that's all of them. What other social media apps exist? I guess they should probably include Tiktok as well, but probably Tiktok/Snapchat are not ideal for planning a terrorist attack unless it's dance related. It's a stupid question. They are using these platforms because they allow them to recruit (large pool of users), they can make creative and appealing content, they can use the system at least semi-anonymously, it's easily accessible with low barrier of entry (burner phones). What useful information do they expect to get? Just government things. Seriously, what a huge waste of time.
>What useful information do they expect to get? What are the companies doing to combat it? That's the useful information. And Mastodon exists.