This is incredibly misleading. Unfortunately the author fails to highlight what the preachers said. One suggested that the Islamic prophet was a paedophile, I wonder how the author would react if it was suggested by a muslim that Jesus was a paedophile?

Suggesting that the qu'ran (as they did) promotes violence, killing and looting is akin to stating that the bible promotes incest, rape and murder - read the Old Testament sometime.

If you want to know more about the details of this case I would suggest you have a look at the decision - http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/islamic_council_of_victoria_v_catch_the_fire_ministries.pdf you may find it interesting to read what this author left out.

I'd actually like to see what was said, not that it would change my view of the legislation. I don't think saying the prophet Mohammed was a paedophile in this context is any worse than saying Christ was conceived out of wedlock. The Old Testament certainly does promote violence, some of which we see at work in Israel at the moment and it gives honour to people who have committed incest and murder.

I've looked at the summary, and the individuals concerned appear to me to have put an extreme case, but is this enough to involve the law?

We publish all sorts of material in the journal and on the forum which misrepresent Christianity. As a Christian I've never once thought that it was a matter for other than open argument. Certainly never crossed my mind that it ought to be illegal. In fact, rather the reverse.

I would like to know EXACTLY what was in the texts and verses from the Quran. That is surely the starting point. How can we judge the resulting comments unless we know what EXACTLY was the basis for discussion? I challenge the authorities to publish the verses and texts on this site and in the Press . Let's have ALL THE FACTS. Otherwise there will always be a smell of suspicion sbout this case. As GrahamY points out, Christianity gets belted around the head every day in the media, but doesn't run screaming for legal vengeance. That's surely what freedom of religious discussion means, not spies attending seminars and taking notes to run to the legal eagles with.I think this Law is just a weapon to intimidate Christians with. I would bet my best pair of sox that no other religion will be taken before this Tribunal.

I would actually think it is much more offensive to acuse someone of being a paedophile then being born out of wedlock...

I don't agree with a lot of things in the Muslim religion, I also don't agree with a lot of aspects of Christianity, but if people choose to believe - good luck to them, but there is no need to slander the beliefs of others.

I think the problems related to religion come down to one thing - fundamentalists, be they muslim fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, hindu fundamentalists, atheist fundamentalists, or any other type. There is no need to slander other peoples beliefs, and given that we can't control what people say (and nor should we) I see no other option for people to seek some relief from vilification then using the courts.

Ayesha, the second wife of Mohammed was 6 when he married her and 9 when they had sexual relations, so I understand.

I'm not making a point about what is more offensive - illegitimacy or paedophilia - I am making the point that most believers would see both as offensive. On the facts I would think both were likely to be true (and I am a Christian). I don't see that I should have any legal problems making these statements, but I am not aware of the way in which they were said by the offending pastor, so it is difficult to make a personal judgement on the findings of the court.

As usual, Big Al misses the point by a country mile. This is not about "freedom of religious discussion", it is about racial vilification, whether religious or secular.

There is no breach of the constitutional right to free speech in quoting, discussing and publishing verses of the Koran, just as there is no problem in quoting, discussing and publishing verses of the Bible. There is, however, a law against misrepresenting such religious verses to inflame racial vilification.

For example, if a Muslim cleric quoted the verse from the bible where god instructs his people to murder women and children, and then told his congregation that all christians in Australia secretly want to murder women and children, because this is what their bible tells them to do, then that cleric might find himself in similar legal difficultes.