Doog,

But threatening, hateful Muslims are not "dealt with like anyone else". A Christian pastor had to front up to court in Victoria simply for repeating what was in the Koran. I don't recall any of the Muslims shouting anti-Semitic slogans and calling our troops murderers being dragged before the beak.

Ttbn "A Christian pastor had to front up to court in Victoria simply for repeating what was in the Koran."
Really?
Is that right?
Can you show us a reputable website that reports the specifics on that story?

An exceptionally good article on political censorship by Lawrence Maher.

I had always thought that free speech was the foundation stone of democracy and it stopped at incitement to violence. But in Australia, it is the other way around. Andrew Bolt got hauled before the courts for penning an article on who should be eligible to claim entitlements meant exclusively for disadvantaged aborigines, while Muslims who hold up signs saying "Behead those who insult the prophet!" are not prosecuted, or they get "counseled."

The most important point which Lawrence submitted is that under 18C, people can be prosecuted for writing or saying something which just happens to be true. With the only exception being official secrets, prosecuting people for telling the truth is not indicative of an enlightened society.

Here you are, susieoncrack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

More info here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Historic-win-in-religious-hatred-case/2004/12/17/1102787271940.html

"Judge Michael Higgins ruled that Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Danny Nalliah and speaker Daniel Scot vilified Muslims at a seminar in 2002, in a newsletter and an article on a website.

He said that in the seminar, Mr Scot made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct in a way that was "hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Muhammad and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices".

In the first big test of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, he ruled that Mr Scot's conduct was not reasonable and in good faith for any genuinely religious purpose or in the public interest (which the act makes exempt). He found Mr Scot's evidence evasive and twice lacking credibility. Judge Higgins said the newsletter, by Mr Nalliah, sought to create fear of Muslims and was likely to incite hatred, while the website article by an American was an example of the type of conduct the act intended to prohibit."

LEGLESS, that link doesn't work old boy.
Thanks for your link Toni Lavis.

Having read about the guy from the "Fire Ministry" (really?), I have to say I agree with the judge's findings.
What a nasty hate-filled so-called Christian this 'hell-fire and damnation bloke is!