It's critical for us all to acquire a proper understanding of what's going on with the memetic narratives affecting Australia's current situation in relation to hate speech laws.
Clearly, saying that there are no good Muslims as Hanson did is ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous as saying there are no good Christ cult people. Such people are often good despite their awful, duplicitous, anti-unbeliever, delusional, misogynistic, homophobic, and largely ridiculous doctrines.
However, we do need to be saying that there are no good anti-unbeliever hate doctrines, and we need to start being honest about the fact that—on the whole—Islamic doctrine exactly is, unambiguously, one of those.
Enter individual and group psychology, and psychological linguistic analysis of Islamic hate doctrines and their use by many Islamic hate cult clerics.
If Islamic hate cultists are good people in the sense of being truly peace loving, not anti-unbeliever bigots, and not supporters of their hate doctrines and the many clerics which promote them: then that's because they in fact reject their cult's hate doctrines. They're good people despite their cult and its hate doctrines. Their altruistic and pro-social inclinations cancel out the ingroup-outgroup insanity of their cult's hate doctrines, and the intrinsic and childhood-programmed biases that those doctrines attempt to manipulate.
Frankly, such people are victims and have a raw deal.
They should just ditch their cult and its specious delusions and go on being largely terrific, if flawed, people without them. Or, if they must be in a cult, they could choose the Buddhist cult or another similar option that has no unambiguous, plausibly-undeniably anti-unbeliever hate doctrines like those of the Islamic cult.
Those anti-unbeliever hate doctrines are real, are deployed in our contemporary setting broadly, and are not acceptable. Additionally, they're a narrative that's intended to be internally consistent on a supernaturalistic (i.e. dogmatic and immutable) basis. That's significant, and what makes them truly dangerous. Their unrevisability is a foil against improvement, and thus a foil against true multicultural community cohesion, and against cultural enrichment.
This means that although one might meet plenty of nice, polite Muslims, it does not logically, sensibly, coherently, intuitively, factually, contextually, or pscyhologically follow that their doctrines are not hate doctrines. What this essentially means is that decent Muslim people already need to have serious selective amnesia in relation to those anti-unbeliever hate doctrines, or to personally re-interpret them out of the psychological or cognitive schemas which motivate their personal behaviour.
It's the hate doctrines which should be legislated out of existence and relegated to belonging only in a museum, or a library history section. Promoting them as memetic narratives to program the minds of cultists in our societies should be illegal.
Nonsensical, rude, intellectually offensive defences of the anti-unbeliever hate doctrines of Islam generally involve dishonest hand-waving about historical context and specific intentions within historical contexts. This approach is disingenuous in multiple ways, and obviously so.
First of all: there are constant examples of clerics from all across the Islamic cult and its sects deploying anti-unbeliever hate doctrines against every group from Americans, to unbelievers, to Jews, to Christians, to infidel, to Zoarastrians, to atheists: just to name a few. Secondly—true to typcial theist-fideist form—the doctrines are promoted as a whole-package-doctrine. Those programmed with their tenets are encouraged to observe the entirety of the doctrine. The doctrine itself says this. It's the usual circular reinforcement of such delusional narratives.
Thirdly: the false "out of context" lie is just not good enough anyway. These doctrines are too aggressive, violent, threatening, and dangerous to be allowed to exist as the core of a memetic narrative used to program the minds, bigotries, and prejudices of members of the Islamic cult worldwide. Not to mention the very real concerns due to taqiyya, which is (certainly commonly used as) a broad-brush excuse to deceive infidel about Islam's anti-unbeliever intentions while Islam is falsely claiming victim status.
In Australia the current approach to handling this monumental set of problems which are caused squarely, wholly, and exclusively by archaic, atavistic hate doctrines of Dark Ages cults like Islam is to:
1. Accept such disastrous, anti-unbeliever memetic narratives as an unavoidable, embedded norm of our cultures due to careless, all-or-nothing deployment of the cultural doctrine of freedom of religion and
2. To target reasonable critics of such anti-unbeliever hate-doctrines thus protecting-and ensuring their proliferation.
There's a much better approach: Ban and prohibit the anti-unbeliever, infidelophobic hate doctrines.
Enriching multiculturalism is good. Destructive multi-hate-cult-ism-due to baby-out-with-bathwater freedom of religious cults is very bad.
Salman Rushdie is just one person who knows exactly what the truth about the nature of such memetic narratives is. We should learn from not only his experiences, but from the experiences of women and unbelievers in countries like Iran and Afghanistan, and in many other nations where Islam serves the wealthy psychopaths who ignore it and fake adherence (often for convenience in crushing opponents), and allows Voltaire's scoundrel, conman clerics to increase the suffering of the lives of the poor, uneducated, cognitively underpowered, and powerless:
