Religious vilification laws are an infringement on free speech. Ideas are powerful and wrong ideas have terrible consequences. The only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued. The religious vilification laws in Victoria should be repealed.

BILL..

The second difficulty with vilification laws is that they are usually broad, vague, nebulous and filled with ambiguous and unclear terminology. Consider the Victorian Act. It speaks of “severe contempt”, “revulsion” and “severe ridicule”.

and then there is the worst enemy of freedom 'SELECTIVE APPLICATION'.

It has become quite clear through my own interaction and observation of the UNequal Opportunity Commission and the various connections, that the act is nothing more than a convenient political tool, useful to those who have specific interests (constituencies?) to protect.

Fortunately, there is a STATE ELECTION in 2006, where I trust all of us will do our utmost to oust "Adolph" Bracks and company.

Then one of the first tasks by the new government would be to replace the Gestapo of the EOC with people who are fair minded, balanced and not subject to political string pulling.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think there will never be string pulling or influence on sensitive matters, but I'd prefer the strings were pulled for the protection of the MAJORITY rather than obscure minorities who happen to support particular Labor candidates.

I further rejoice that I live in a MARGINAL seat which is still fuming over the 'yes children, we will give you a freeeeeeway" but then where Adolph renegged and diverted funds to 'other' projects.

My smile becomes even wider when I think that I'm plugged into around 300 people in just my immediate area. (not to mention the casual campaigning that one can do at the gym, mall, on walks, or wherever.
(All of which I do)

"We reap what we sow"

Vilification laws clearly demonstrate that the tail wags the dog in Australia – the tail being minorities. As Bill Muehlenberg points out, minorities wanted laws against real or imagined slights, so they got them. The laws are to protect them from us nasty, mainstreamers who have nothing better to do than go around vilifying minorities.

We all noted that the vilification laws didn’t apply to the nutter Islamic cleric who recently proclaimed that women who dress in particular ways are asking for a jolly good raping from the brethren.

Bill Muehlenberg questions the ‘democracy’ of introducing these oppressive laws. But who expects democracy from the same folks who gave us multiculturalism without consultation?

So the crux of the arguement for these opposers of laws against religous vilification, is that they reluctantly agree that it is not right to vilify people on the basis of their race but it is fine to vilify their religion. These are the kinds of spurious arguements that makes Australia an international disgrace, a fertile growth area for the American religious right and makes me ashamed to be an Australian.

Actually dd, this is precisely what Justice Morris said in the recently concluded Alpha case.

I quote clause 7 of Justice Morris' reasons for decision in dismissing the complaint against Alpha – a course of Christian instruction, brought on by a self declared witch.

"7. The Act is not concerned with the vilification of a religious belief or activity as such. Rather it is concerned with the vilification of a person, or a class of persons, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of the person or class. As the Chief Executive of the Equal Opportunity Commission recently explained:

"[The Act] protects religious freedom by ensuring that people are not subjected to vilification because of their beliefs. This does not mean that people cannot evangelise and proselytise, just that they must do so without inciting hatred of those who follow differing religious beliefs.""

If you want to see the full decision go here: http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/fletcher_v_salvation_army_and_cmc_australasia.pdf

The reason for the different treatment of race and religion is not hard to understand – race for anyone of us is a given whereas religion is a choice and nowhere more clearly seen than with the progress of Islam and Christianity continuing to freely convert people from all races and regions of the world to their particular beliefs.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court of Victoria will make of the Catch the Fire case now that Justice Higgins appears to have cut much of the ground from under Judge Higgins’ earlier decision in the CTF case, but we will have to wait and see.

Once again Bill has argued a reasonable, calm and compelling case.

Apologies - my second last para should have read:

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court of Victoria will make of the Catch the Fire case now that Justice Morris appears to have cut much of the ground from under Judge Higgins’ earlier decision in the CTF case, but we will have to wait and see..