"In Victoria it is illegal to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, a person or class of persons on religious grounds..."

Therefore it is illegal (and no valid excuse) for anyone to claim that their religion and its tenets mandate their hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of other persons or class of persons?

This bears repeating--and remembering:

<<In response to questions, Burnside supported penalising those who insulted God and his prophets>>

It is hard to believe that in 2013 we still have people who believe in a variety of Gods and have Laws which punish people who use their names without due respect.

Evolution is being held up by those who cling to silly superstitions. Such people deny reality and can't accept the evidence that there is no evidence supporting the existence of any God or Gods let alone life after death.

The fact proves to me that, in the main, we are still primitive, irrational, barbaric creatures although war also demonstrates that this is so.

When are humans going to grow up? If clerics have their way, NEVER!

This is a good article and the debate is astounding because it shows once again that Islam and Muslims are not prevaricating about their intentions. Badar is at least honest.

The other Muslim in the debate, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, demonstrated the velvet glove over the iron fist of Islam with her meaningless distinction between insult and incitement to hatred. As has been argued before this semblance of 'moderation' within Islam has no force or meaning.

Everyone has a right to a religious belief; that is a basic right because we are all mortal; but the substance of that belief should be open to all the ridicule possible.

We are just seeing the evil done by Catholicism. The evil done in Islam's name is MUCH worse and as Badar clearly shows his intention is to replace Western values with Sharia.

Burnside is at best a fool at worst a quisling. His position is contemptible and an insult to all those who suffer at the hands of Islam.

Religions should have no rights per se other than a right to be accepted by people disposed to them. All acts of coercion, oppression, declared intent to oppose the democratic structure by a religion or its representatives should be subject to criminal penalty

Burnside unmasked!

There may be laws against blasphemy still extant in states and territories, but no one takes them seriously any more than the local and still legal law in York (Britain) which makes it mandatory for public officials to put to immediate death any Scotsman found within the city limits carrying a sword.

It is hardly surprising that it is the Muslims who want to turn back the clock. That people like Burnside and Keneally could actually agree with the Muslims on this topic shows just how out of touch with reality these people are. It seems that Keneally and Burnside think just like the Arnold Schwartzeneger robot in the movie Terminator.

1. Minorities are always right.
2. White civilisation is always wrong.
3. White civilisations are always wrong, especially if they are Americans.

Could somebody please remind Keneally, Burnside and former Attorney General Nicola Roxon that freedom of speech in western countries is supposed to be a done deal? The very idea that offending somebodies God should be an actionable criminal offence is right out of Monty Python. One could imagine the Mutawah Thought Police going around every DVD outltet in Australia confiscating every copy of The Life of Brian.

The most alarming thing about this whole blasphemy BS is that somebody is even taking it seriously. The audience at this debate should have laughed the supporters of political censorship right off the stage. The whole reason why the western world rocketed away from every other culture is because we stopped believing in divine intervention, started thinking straight, and began the process of scientific analysis and free discussion of ideas.