Violence erupts in Sydney over anti-Islam film (5 Viewers)

[7eleven]

Did the police really start pepperspraying people/unnecessarily confronting them before the protesters got violent?- umm yes. There was quite a lot of footage where, police had withdrawn their cans, and sprayed at the protesters, despite the protester making no apparent intent to move forward or attack them.

 

[Azure]

Did the police really start pepperspraying people/unnecessarily confronting them before the protesters got violent?- umm yes. There was quite a lot of footage where, police had withdrawn their cans, and sprayed at the protesters, despite the protester making no apparent intent to move forward or attack them.

Lol please. For somebody who apparently condemns and is opposed to the protest, you are making quite a lot of posts in support of them. Attempting to storm a US embassy and ignoring police commands to disperse (when your protest is not legitimate) are both valid reasons for forceful action by the police. Especially when the protestors appear to be extremist lunatics who are endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

 

[7eleven]

"private citizen"? lol . http://rt.com/usa/news/innocence-muslims-informant-nakoula-349/

 

[moll.]

Buddy, you got it all wrong. PakiPrince is absolutely right in my view. And i'm comin from a neutral perspective here.

1)The amount of shit America does with muslims around the world is despicable. Why they interfering with the countries (by invading them, involving with arab spring etc).
2) I don't have knowledge to answer that
3) Yes, in a few circumstances they actually did. Its funny coz most of the media show the injured policeman, and how resilient he was. But then they portray the muslims as the trouble makers. Its so biased!

Seriously? They got asked by the Libyan rebels to intervene, and even then they took a back seat to France and Britain. Even now they are still not involved in Syria, despite Assad slaughtering his own citizens, because there is not clear and overwhelming calls by the rebels and their other allies for them to be. They have just issued letters of condemnation, as have basically every other country in the world, even Assad's ally, Russia. Why do you single out America?
Also, just because the media doesn't portray the story the way you think it should be doesn't necessarily mean they are biased. Maybe that's what actually happened. Neither of us were there, so neither of us has proof to the contrary.

 

[7eleven]

Lol please. For somebody who apparently condemns and is opposed to the protest, you are making quite a lot of posts in support of them. Attempting to storm a US embassy and ignoring police commands to disperse (when your protest is not legitimate) are both valid reasons for forceful action by the police. Especially when the protestors appear to be extremist lunatics who are endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

How am i supporting the protest?

 

[wannabesurgeon]

Lol please. For somebody who apparently condemns and is opposed to the protest, you are making quite a lot of posts in support of them. Attempting to storm a US embassy and ignoring police commands to disperse (when your protest is not legitimate) are both valid reasons for forceful action by the police. Especially when the protestors appear to be extremist lunatics who are endangering the safety of innocent bystanders.

+1 Exactly this. ^^

 

[Peccadillo]

The jury is out on the police response - I think the question arises around their immediate response and how it all started.. However I suspect Azure is correct in that the police did what they needed to do to supress the violence.
It wouldn't surprise me if some police would have relished the opportunity to lay into some fundamentalist muslims but I really dont think you can fault the police on a whole in this instance. I saw no instances in the footage to constitute "excessive force" in my opinion. If you throw a punch at an officer you can expect to be brought down with force.

 

[Azure]

"private citizen"? lol . http://rt.com/usa/news/innocence-muslims-informant-nakoula-349/

You cannot be a real person.

Somebody who is found guilty of cheque fraud and consequently reaches a deal with the prosecutor to "snitch" on the others involved in exchange for a reduced sentence, does not surrender their citizenship.

How is this any different from the bikies in Sydney? One gets busted for drug manufacturing amidst an array of other offences and decides that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so he gives up information about the rest of the gang to the police. Is he no longer a private citizen? Is he an agent of the state to the extent that his individual sovereignty and basic human right to a nationality is waived? Are you joking or what?

I can't believe I dignified that with a reply.

 

[Peccadillo]

I disagree that the protest is entirely illegitimate... If people want to protest against the production of video despicting the prophet in this way that is their entitlement. It just needs to be done so in the right way and needs to illustrate a clear message beyond that of "this video was made - we are pissed"..

It needs to have some form of objective beyond that of displaying anger.. I agree. The protest was poorly organised.

What dissapoints me as a muslim is that at an event like this.. there were NO prominent sheikhs to be seen at the event.. Now one might argue this is the case because the shiekhs on the whole do not endorse this behaviour. But i sincerely believe whether they like it or not they should attend. They should listen to their community and act.. not just distance themselves.

 

[Azure]

This is pretty disgusting: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/muslims-inundated-with-messages-of-hate-20120918-263gj.html

Just as bad as the protest.

 

[soloooooo]

An interesting point of view. Can definitely say I agree with most of it. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ad-to-travel-to-reach-all-20120917-262gf.html

I agree with it as well.

 

[7eleven]

"Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited."- now don't tell me that the film didnt intend to bring about violence. Why would the producers send the film to the media in arab nations, as this article clearly suggests.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918,0,3112718.story

 

[Azure]

I disagree that the protest is entirely illegitimate... If people want to protest against the production of video despicting the prophet in this way that is their entitlement. It just needs to be done so in the right way and needs to illustrate a clear message beyond that of "this video was made - we are pissed"..

It needs to have some form of objective beyond that of displaying anger.. I agree. The protest was poorly organised.

What dissapoints me as a muslim is that at an event like this.. there were NO prominent sheikhs to be seen at the event.. Now one might argue this is the case because the shiekhs on the whole do not endorse this behaviour. But i sincerely believe whether they like it or not they should attend. They should listen to their community and act.. not just distance themselves.

I agree. To clarify, people are absolutely free to protest whatever they like. I mean, that's the beauty of freedom. It becomes an issue (and in my view, loses legitimacy) when, as you rightfully mentioned, no due process is taken in organising and planing the event (including notifying the relevant authorities) and when violence is used to endanger the wider community.

 

[Azure]

"Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited."- now don't tell me that the film didnt intend to bring about violence. Why would the producers send the film to the media in arab nations, as this article clearly suggests.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918,0,3112718.story

You're heading into murky territory there. The reason the US government was ultimately powerless to prevent the distribution of the film was because you could successfully argue that the underlying intention of the producer was to produce satire. It's not a very funny film, but the intention of inciting violence does not seem to be there.

If anything, I would put forward that some of the banners in the protest were actually designed to incite violence (i.e. "Behead those who insult the prophet")

 

[7eleven]

"satire"?- there's a huge difference between a satirical cartoon and a 15 minute film which would leave 2 billion people around the world feel beyond offended. Political satires are always published in newspapers, to mock politicians, however i fear this is quite beyond that.

 

[Azure]

Offensive=/=incitement to commit imminent lawless action or violence.

See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Edit: Found a wikipedia link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[sointoyourself]

NO ONE EVEN SEEN THE VIDEO! The whole point is, it wasn't about the video! If it was, why are we seeing people burning the American flag, attacking American consulates across the globe, when the American government have clearly condemned the film. The film merely triggered a demonstration of what are increasing Western/Islamic tensions.

 

[7eleven]

Offensive=/=incitement to commit imminent lawless action or violence.

See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Edit: Found a wikipedia link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

All i have to say is your very arrogant to believe that film was not made with the intention to incite violence. Yes, the violence is not justified but i definitely don't agree with u about the underlying intentions of this film.

 

[Lolsmith]

What do you mean, " you guys". It was a minority of 500 people. Plus, a lot of the protesters are familiar to me, most are uneducated dropouts from punchbowl, belmore or granville boys.

A lot of Muslims, like you said in your previous post, don't understand what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the right to say or write literally anything without legislative censorship. If you had your way, you would silence opinions that you disliked simply because you're too childish to deal with it. This isn't true for all Muslims, but anyone that is an apologist for the sort of behaviour shown in the protest definitely would.

 

[7eleven]

NO ONE EVEN SEEN THE VIDEO! The whole point is, it wasn't about the video! If it was, why are we seeing people burning the American flag, attacking American consulates across the globe, when the American government have clearly condemned the film. The film merely triggered a demonstration of what are increasing Western/Islamic tensions.

someone raised this point earlier, and i agree with u, as to how several have used this as an excuse to protest against the west. But, its quite similiar to how the Americans used 9/11 as an excuse to gain entry into iraq and other midlle eastern countries.