Dear Foxy,

Religionists may use the phrase, true religion, to refer to the particular version they favour. They may describe those who have different versions from theirs as blasphemers. I don't know what true religion is and think blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Dear David F.,

Some form of religion has existed in every society that
we know of. Religious beliefs and practices are so
ancient that they can be traced into prehistory.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it
seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that
lay beyond everyday reality. Among the fossilized remains
of these cave dwellers, anthropologists have found evidence
of funeral ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts
that were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany them
on the journey to an afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes
a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors,
or totems, they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied
rituals, or solemn prayer.

Religion can be defined as a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred,
supernatural real.

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel -
"Tom Jones," declares, "When I mention religion, I mean
the Christian religion, and not only the Christian religion, but
the Protestant religion, and not only the Protestant religion, but
the Church of England." Most people are like Mr Thwackum, when
they mention religion, they have their own in mind.

And of course there are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and that
all others are misguided, superstitious, even wicked.

I personally, am not concerned with the truth or falsity of
any religion. I have no wish to play umpire between competing
faiths. My husband was brought up by the Christian Brothers.
They turned him off religion for life.

Hi Avw

You may be right that non-Muslim Australians would not get away with saying the same things about Moslems as al-Wahwah said about the Jews. One of the problems with curtailing free speech is that, unless the same consideration is given to every group that feels aggrieved, the effect is discriminatory.

That seems to be the case with the apparent hierarchy of groups who can and can’t be offended. Jews are sometimes treated as legitimate targets by those who disapprove of Israel - anti-Semitism masquerades as anti-Zionism. Christians seem to be fair game; Muslims are not. But in France, for example, Muslims can rightly ask why holocaust denial is a crime, but it’s ok to publish pornographic and insulting cartoons of Mohammed.

In the USA, there is a debate over whether Mark Twain’s works should be edited to remove the “n” word, even though Twain’s views were extraordinarily tolerant and unprejudiced for his time.

Australian Feminists wan “Zoo” magazine off the supermarket shelves.

In the USA and Northern Ireland, bakeries have been sued for refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

Militant atheists want to ban public expressions of Christianity such as Christmas decorations on streets and prayers in schools.

In the UK, an activist who helps rape victims was hounded for writing that a transsexual who had recently become a woman should not counsel women who have been raped.

We can accommodate all of these claims, some, or none. But if it’s only some, then there will always be legitimate claims of discrimination. And if we accept all of the limitations that aggrieved parties want to impose on us, we will lose important freedoms.

Nick Cohen puts it very well: “people oppose censorship not because they respect the words of the speaker but because they fear the power of the censor”

The full article is worth reading:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5981/full

Can we return to the point please....sorry I got locked out. Perhaps we who share this small space can define 'free speech'? the alternative is to just keep raving on about out favourite issue.
It did not take long to get to pro - Palestine which can be code for anti Israel then off we go with out various issues.
The question is.....how come its ok for a mad Muslim to demand the death of Jews? Apparently the law says its ok because we are a democratic society . The DPP say well folks we are on thin ice here because prima facie we could proceed to court.
If Mannis had not been freed on bail with something like 40 charges then 2 innocent and yes..Australian citizens would be alive right now.
Can we please define for the purpose of this discussion - free speech?

Dear Shades of Blue,

Freedom of speech is the right to speak out publicly
or privately. The term covers all forms of expression,
including books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television,
films, and so on. Many scholars consider freedom of
speech a natural right.

However, people who enjoy the rights of free speech have
a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others -
for example the right to maintain their good reputation,
and their right to privacy. All societies including
democratic ones put various limitations on what people
may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they
believe might harm the government or the people.

However, drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech
can be extremely difficult. There are usually several major
restrictions on free expression. Laws covering libel and
slander prohibits speech or publication that harms a person's
reputation. Some laws forbid speech that offends public
decency by using obscenities or by encouraging people to
commit acts considered immoral. Laws against spying, treason,
and urging violence prohibit speech that endangers life,
property, or national security. Other laws forbid speech that
invades the right of people not to listen to it, for
example, a local bylaw might limit the times when people
may use loudspeakers to make announcements in the streets.
And so it goes.

However drawing the line between dangerous and harmless
speech can be extremely difficult, as stated earlier.
In the case of the extremist spiritual leader who spoke out
after the rally in Sydney and blamed all Jews for the
bombing of the Gaza strip by Israel. That I would consider
vile - because it incites hatred.
Just as I agree with Thomas Friedman who wrote -

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is
vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and
international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party
in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is
dishonest."

OK I'm impressed.....any one want to add or detract from the stated definition? If we have a consensus we may make progress because I for one want to know why someone who wants to kill me just because I am a Jew and IN TIMES SUCH AS THESE it is not accountable legally! - clearly after they kill me/us they will have broken the law but is this what it is going to take?
I take the point that freedom of speech is a vital aspect of a democratic society AND we are not dealing with people who know the meaning of the word!