Perth university lecturer Dr Sandra Nasr in hot water over anti-semitic article

Perth university is investigating after an article one of its lecturers published was heavily condemned as slanderous and racist. Posted to The London School of Economics and Political Science website on December 3,
Dr Sandra Nasr's article infers Palestinians living in Israel are treated as 'non-human' by Jewish people who subscribe to an ideology or superiority, separateness and entitlement. The UK-based Jewish Community Security Trust has slammed the article, claiming it was false, offensive and "had no place" in the academic world. "The post attacks Israel by employing grotesque racist slanders against Judaism," it said.  


"The post even includes a link to a holocaust denial website called VHO and specifically to an article by Roger Garaudy, a holocaust denier who was convicted in France of denying the holocaust and fined £20,000." The University of Notre Dame Australia, where Dr Nasr is a lecturer in Middle East and human rights politics at the Fremantle campus, said in a statement on Friday that it did not endorse comments made in the article. "The opinions and comments expressed by Dr Sandra Nasr were not endorsed or sanctioned by the University and do not, in any way, represent the views of The University of Notre Dame Australia," the statement read.

Astounding.  Doesn't Australia have freedom of expression, as the US does in the Constitution's First Amendment?

It's really simple.  You oppose what she says, not her right to say it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Original Quill wrote:Astounding.  Doesn't Australia have freedom of expression, as the US does in the Constitution's First Amendment?

It's really simple.  You oppose what she says, not her right to say it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

It does allow freedom of speech and so does the UK and yet the left want to ban Donald trump as they have raised a petition.
Yet fail do so when Islamic hate preachers are invited to the UK
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left who shows the worst doubl standards possible
I mean he maybe a racist twat.
But she is a racist holocaust denier twat inciting hate against Jews.

So I see the point was lost on the lefty

Quelle surprise

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Astounding.  Doesn't Australia have freedom of expression, as the US does in the Constitution's First Amendment?

It's really simple.  You oppose what she says, not her right to say it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

It does allow freedom of speech and so does the UK and yet the left want to ban Donald trump as they have raised a petition.
Yet fail do so when Islamic hate preachers are invited to the UK
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left who shows the worst doubl standards possible
I mean he maybe a racist twat.
But she is a racist holocaust denier twat inciting hate against Jews.

So I see the point was lost on the lefty

Quelle surprise

I agree about the hypocrisy. But no, the UK is not an open society that permits freedom of expression.

That is my point...Europe as a whole has gone full-circle, and the left is using censorship as a means of political response and repression. It all comes about because of the Nazi experience, I know. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath.

You can oppose what someone says, but do it legitimately...argue back. You don't silence anything by censorship; you just raise questions as to what you're hiding.

Sorry did a yank who does not live here claim we do not have freedom of expression?
Sorry not interested in what crack you are smoking this afternoon.
If you have something sensible to say, then let me know
i am all for anyone being able to speak, as long as people are allowed to speak back, which with Muslim extremists is not the case.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Sorry did a yank who does not live here claim we do not have freedom of expression?
Sorry not interested in what crack you are smoking this afternoon.
If you have something sensible to say, then let me know
i am all for anyone being able to speak, as long as people are allowed to speak back, which with Muslim extremists is not the case.

And what is that?   An exegesis in philosophy??

It's a free forum.  Well, of course...it's an American site.  

bath water quill...you throw the baby out with the bath water

Lt Huxley I presume,,,
no wait ...she had a nice body.......

Original Quill wrote:Astounding.  Doesn't Australia have freedom of expression, as the US does in the Constitution's First Amendment?

It's really simple.  You oppose what she says, not her right to say it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

it is different as she is a lecturer therefore has to be careful to express that the opinions are not held by the university.

@quill
there is big difference
In the USA freedom of Speech Includes Being able top KNOWING LIE AND DECEIVE FOR PROFIT  In Australia and the UK you cannot do that.
Also we have Hate speech laws, and several nontransferable 'duties of care' that override anyone's right to talk shit.

the Major difference is that in the USA You are Allowed to Call anything a FACT even if it is proven wrong beyond any doubt, here you cannot. This is why you have creationism taught in schools and we do not it is against the law as it is PROVEN to be BULLSHIT.

So On Balance ours is several million times better than the crap you call 'freedom of speech' which is more correctly 'freedom to knowingly deceive'.
Opinions and Lies ARE NOT BENEFICIAL as truth and factual information, your system places the freedom to lie over the Public's ability to trust presented information.

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
there is big difference
In the USA freedom of Speech Includes Being able top KNOWING LIE AND DECEIVE FOR PROFIT  In Australia and the UK you cannot do that.
Also we have Hate speech laws, and several nontransferable 'duties of care' that override anyone's right to talk shit.

the Major difference is that in the USA You are Allowed to Call anything a FACT even if it is proven wrong beyond any doubt, here you cannot. This is why you have creationism taught in schools and we do not it is against the law as it is PROVEN to be BULLSHIT.

So On Balance ours is several million times better than the crap you call 'freedom of speech' which is more correctly 'freedom to knowingly deceive'.
Opinions and Lies ARE NOT BENEFICIAL as truth and factual information, your system places the freedom to lie over the Public's ability to trust presented information.

Good explanation.  I reserve judgment on the opinions, but I see you have a qualified freedom of speech.

Are Australians afraid to call a liar a liar? Why do they need the government to speak for them?

To stop us stabbing them  
It is more Australians get so pissed off at liars.
and the strictness varies depending on the  position of the liar, it is higher for position of authority or people with a 'duty of care'.

Plus the smaller population means there are monopolies and duopolies that exist and there is not much that can be done as it just the result of economic reality. So there needs to be laws to control them since 'the market' can't.... like you would rely on in the USA.

Also it is a trust thing, I think Aussies got to the point that they were so Jaded by False advertisement they made it a crime to knowingly lie in advertisement a crime.
it is before my time but i am sure it is trade off between the people demanding the truth and companies wanting 'artistic license' in advertisement, there is several loop holes and over the years it has been tweaked as new cases come up.

veya_victaous wrote:To stop us stabbing them  
It is more Australians get so pissed off at liars.
and the strictness varies depending on the  position of the liar, it is higher for position of authority or people with a 'duty of care'.

Plus the smaller population means there are monopolies and duopolies that exist and there is not much that can be done as it just the result of economic reality. So there needs to be laws to control them since 'the market' can't.... like you would rely on in the USA.

Also it is a trust thing, I think Aussies got to the point that they were so Jaded by False advertisement they made it a crime to knowingly lie in advertisement a crime.
it is before my time but i am sure it is trade off between the people demanding the truth and companies wanting 'artistic license' in advertisement, there is several loop holes and over the years it has been tweaked as new cases come up.

Yeah, I can see ya get pissed off.  I can too.

But 'Names and Faces can never hurt me...' and all that.  Fight fire with fire.  A lone person can't hurt you with words.  But like the storyteller says, follow the money.  If someone is hurting you with monopolies and duopolies, shut them down.  Don't shut  off freedom of speech.

Course, ask me about the Marcuse thesis.

When you have to fight the liars on their own turf, or even when the field is tilted in their favor, you get better at it and your wins are never suspect. You also learn how to fight long wars and you get that oh-so-satisfying realization that good people can win out in the long run.

I don't see what's racist about her article. Whether it's slanderous or not is up for discussion I guess. I don't think she should have dragged Europe into it though - there's no need to blame Europe for everything.

I don't see why she should be banned from the UK for linking to a holocaust denial site - I can't actually see a link to that in the article anyway. Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, which is a good thing IMO. She also didn't deny the holocaust in her article.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:To stop us stabbing them  
It is more Australians get so pissed off at liars.
and the strictness varies depending on the  position of the liar, it is higher for position of authority or people with a 'duty of care'.

Plus the smaller population means there are monopolies and duopolies that exist and there is not much that can be done as it just the result of economic reality. So there needs to be laws to control them since 'the market' can't.... like you would rely on in the USA.

Also it is a trust thing, I think Aussies got to the point that they were so Jaded by False advertisement they made it a crime to knowingly lie in advertisement a crime.
it is before my time but i am sure it is trade off between the people demanding the truth and companies wanting 'artistic license' in advertisement, there is several loop holes and over the years it has been tweaked as new cases come up.

Yeah, I can see ya get pissed off.  I can too.

But 'Names and Faces can never hurt me...' and all that.  Fight fire with fire.  A lone person can't hurt you with words.  But like the storyteller says, follow the money.  If someone is hurting you with monopolies and duopolies, shut them down.  Don't shut  off freedom of speech.

Course, ask me about the Marcuse thesis.

they are a double edge sword, they also protect us
the best example is Grocery/supermarkets
the Coles and Woolworth duopoly protects us from Walmart and other foreign companies (both are Australian owned so keeps the money here) as they have such high market dominance that it is almost impossible for any new players. generally they are reasonable and do keep up competition between themselves as the only real difference is public perception. But the other side is they can completely screw smaller suppliers and basically dictate the price they will pay which can cause problems (there were issues with the dairy industry a few years ago).

You can see what I say, Aussies generally don't hold back, we have freedom of speech and the freedom to be stupid it is only when you take a position with a 'duty of care' like making a public address that you have to be careful to be accurate. down the pub you can say what you like.

we have stricter laws for business owners, the idea that "it's your business, you can do what you want" isn't really here, Australians are more mindful of regulations and more positive towards them, some piss us off but almost everyone recognizes they stop us killing ourselves and others, Or just keep things fair. a necessary evil, like taxes

Ben_Reilly wrote:When you have to fight the liars on their own turf, or even when the field is tilted in their favor, you get better at it and your wins are never suspect. You also learn how to fight long wars and you get that oh-so-satisfying realization that good people can win out in the long run.

sorry to burst your bubble BUT
US schools still teach kids that a sky giant magicked everything into existence is a valid scientific theory

Plus From personal Experience
I worked At chilis when i was in High school, in the first chilis in Australia,
it had to change several recipes to meet Australian food Standards and some for advertising standards etc
the most amusing was the mash potato
If they used the American Recipe they would not be allowed to sell it as 'Mash potato' due to the butter content
it would have to be sold as "Butter and Mash potato"

Another is Most US cereals when sold in Australia have their dietary claims covered up with stickers, As they are Lies and it is illegal to have them displayed on the packaging

it seems like little things but the accumulative effect is much more accurate information being provided to the public.


Plus by allowing lies to be presented as fact just facilitates idiocy.
And it doesn't matter how sound your reasoning or indisputable your logic
You still end up with Crap Governance when you let liars and Idiots control the board




And Hopefully the good people do win in the long run but you don't seem to be in the USA, because the new pigeons just shouts their lies louder, Sorry but the best counter to your statement is the USA, the fact you allow the lies to be repeated at nausea is pretty much the how you go down the path of 'idiocracy' like literally in the movie most of the problems were cause by the fact the USA allowed false advertisement and lies.

I LIKE that term...idiocracy

is that like a theocracy.....only run by americans rather than priests???????

Thank god for Oz..

"Thank the Great Serpent for Paradise"
that isn't Tony Abbott
it is American Greg Abbott.


and Quill, Abbott is Also an Example of the difference he could not last one term before the majority of people realized we was a moron because tried to promote Christian theology, which may work in his very limited circle (he trained to be a priest before enterign politics)  but as soon as he started using it toward the general electorate he was Obliterated in the polls

BUSH Got RE-elected Even After more public displays of stupidity than Abbott, not enough Americans were educated enough to see he was an idiot.

did you compare Abbotts (He is a texan Governor)







Aussie Abbott is still a wanker but not sure if he is As bad... actually probably about the same



Although he could be rigth here

veya_victaous wrote:"Thank the Great Serpent for Paradise"
that isn't Tony Abbott
it is American Greg Abbott.


and Quill, Abbott is Also an Example of the difference he could not last one term before the majority of people realized we was a moron because tried to promote Christian theology, which may work in his very limited circle (he trained to be a priest before enterign politics)  but as soon as he started using it toward the general electorate he was Obliterated in the polls

BUSH Got RE-elected Even After more public displays of stupidity than Abbott, not enough Americans were educated enough to see he was an idiot.

Yes, but Bush did not get 'originally' elected. In fact, VP Gore beat him in the election. The selection went to the Supreme Court which was Republican. Pity.

veya_victaous wrote:did you compare Abbotts (He is a texan Governor)







Aussie Abbott is still a wanker but not sure if he is As bad... actually probably about the same



Although he could be rigth here

My mistake. I just wanted to remind you about a certain character named Abbott, and obviously I did. Now and again we all do stupid things...Oz is no exception.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:"Thank the Great Serpent for Paradise"
that isn't Tony Abbott
it is American Greg Abbott.


and Quill, Abbott is Also an Example of the difference he could not last one term before the majority of people realized we was a moron because tried to promote Christian theology, which may work in his very limited circle (he trained to be a priest before enterign politics)  but as soon as he started using it toward the general electorate he was Obliterated in the polls

BUSH Got RE-elected Even After more public displays of stupidity than Abbott, not enough Americans were educated enough to see he was an idiot.

Yes, but Bush did not get 'originally' elected.  In fact, VP Gore beat him in the election.  The selection went to the Supreme Court which was Republican.  Pity.

One can forgive the original election BUT RE Elected

a curiosity about the USA is the way your politicians reference god like they have conversations with him
If they did that here people would think they were literally insane.
their parties would not even put them up. Abbott only got a chance because he was the last of John Howard's Ministers (the last RW leadership)  and Aussie were viewing Howard's era as better than the Rudd/Gillard infighting.  he only got leadership of Liberal party from Turnbull last time by one vote, now Turnbull has it by dozens of votes.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but Bush did not get 'originally' elected.  In fact, VP Gore beat him in the election.  The selection went to the Supreme Court which was Republican.  Pity.

One can forgive the original election BUT RE Elected

a curiosity about the USA is the way your politicians reference god like they have conversations with him
If they did that here people would think they were literally insane.
their parties would not even put them up. Abbott only got a chance because he was the last of John Howard's Ministers (the last RW leadership)  and Aussie were viewing Howard's era as better than the Rudd/Gillard infighting.  he only got leadership of Liberal party from Turnbull last time by one vote, now Turnbull has it by dozens of votes.

Yes, that was a shame. America will never vote a president out of office during a war. The thinking, I believe, is that to do so would be a tacit indictment of America.

Tho, in the end, he was pretty much acknowledged as a wanker...

Original Quill wrote:Astounding.  Doesn't Australia have freedom of expression, as the US does in the Constitution's First Amendment?

It's really simple.  You oppose what she says, not her right to say it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Totally agree.

That's what I said about Trump too.