Lapdog
You accuse me of misrepresenting you as an apologist and then you misrepresent what I say:
I do not endorse the concept of "Distributing white hoods and burning crosses". My beef is with Islam and how it is taught and mistaught by many. However, many Muslim "plebs" end up being thrown into "the fire" because of the radical teachings of many (not few).
The reason many might see you as an "apologist" is because of what you say.
On the one hand, you say:
"I gather one of the reasons we have taxpayer funded organisations like ASIO, Federal Police etc. is to monitor such excessive behaviour and to guard against any escalation into deliberate and destructive acts.
We need those organisations to do their jobs properly"
But within a matter of seconds in the same post you argue:
"But please re-read your own post and ask yourself, would I be happy to have my home raided by people offended by what I say?"
------
Lapdog - you cannot argue for the Police and ASIO to do a job, but then turn round and query whether it is fair for them to raid a home...and by the way, If I was advocating (to others) to kill innocent people, I would expect to be raided.
However, reading your words carefully, it is clear your arguments are toothless - almost as if you are carefully tippy toeing around some important philosophy that you are afraid to be seen to speak out against. You are blaming the judiciary for not doing their job, but you are then expecting Law enforcement agencies to pussyfoot around in case they might accidentally offend someone.
How would you suggest Law Enforcement do their job of monitoring potential threats?
You say their job is to "guard" against escalation etc etc. No they are Law enforcement first. Guarding is only part of what they do.
Also, you said in another earlier post
"Jessie1, I'm unaware of that report but I acknowledge that there are many people out there whose views I find deeply offensive and inflammatory. Nor am I happy with the way some people behave on our roads or towards their families after having being repeatedly convicted and continuing to offend as our judiciary pats them on the head and says; "Tut! Tut!"
"I'm unaware of that report" in reference to the following story about a radical preacher:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/radical-preacher-justifies-paris-massacre-20150108-12kl6u.html
Its not a "report" - its bloody local headlines today - I gave you a link. For Pete's sake, read it and comment rather than skirting it because you haven't read it and then further paralleling it with what happens on the roads.
"Surely you reject the notion of being unfairly targeted"
Yes I do, but we'll never know if someone has been unfairly targeted unless we allow the police to actually do their job without the 'apologists' telling them to pussyfoot around in case they accidentally arrest an innocent. Checks and balances, together with our already over cautious approach should take care of the unfortunate mistaken identities.
The police are our front line. The Judiciary are the second line. You say that the second line needs to be drastically improved - of course it does, but if the front line is toothless, how are we going to catch the offenders?
