I hope we never get to the stage in the erosion of human rights in Australia when it is a criminal offence to criticise religious beliefs, such as virgin birth or burning bushes or the miracles of some saint. Religions and ideologies are NOT ethnic, they are not national, they are not 'racial'. They are bodies of ideas, of how the world came to be and the proper social relationships between people in it, and by definition, they are put up by adherents in opposition to counter-ideas.

Religious ideas are precisely those which open themselves up to completely legal scrutiny, criticism, scepticism and derision. They are precisely the fields which contend with free speech in a democratic society. Religion is thus beyond the bounds of Section 18 (c).

Joe

Loudmouth,

" it is a criminal offence to criticise religious beliefs, such as virgin birth or burning bushes or the miracles of some saint. "

I call bull$h1t. Evidence please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The attacks on free speech are many and varied and almost always about protecting some privileged group or enforcing some preferred viewpoint.

That this is permitted is due in no small part to a lack of historical understanding as to the importance of free speech in maintaining overall freedom. In a society that has no living memory of what lack of freedom looks like and where the culture and education system activiely conspire to suppress such knowledge, it not surprising that freedom of speech is not zealously protected

While I agree with most of this and broad scope whistle blower reform!

It can't ever be used as a trojan horse used to repeal or roll back 18C! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Alan B.

18c stifles political communication and it must go.

How does it do that ttbn? Evidence backed by bona fide examples please!

And you personal belief or predilections are not conclusive evidence of anything, save your personal belief based bias!
Alan B.

Allan B.

Given the incoherent gibberish you spray around, you have one hell of a cheek demanded 'evidence' from me. What planet are you living on that you need proof of what is obvious?

Hi Mhaze,

What don't you understand about, " .... I hope we never get to the stage in the erosion of human rights in Australia when it is a criminal offence to criticise religious beliefs .... "

Crudely put, religion is ideas, interpretations, points of view. So are ideologies. They compete for influence in the world of ideas. No religion has any privilege over any other, since they are equally backward, more or less.

If it's true that some 'holy books' prattle that the Earth is flat and that the sun and moon revolve around it, and if modern-day adherents staunchly defend those 'teachings' to the letter, then clearly those sets of ideas and beliefs need to be ridiculed, castigated, derided and laughed at out loud before they do too much damage to small children.

Joe

Obvious? To who? As for gibberish!? I'll let other posters decide who's being civil and reasonable and whose the lead sprayer?

And exampled perfectly by your (first refuge of scoundrels) enraged incoherent Sh!t spray response!

And rolled out, as usual, to simply and always, avoid having to provide compelling factual evidence based, actual examples for your blatant bigotry!

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Loudmouth,

Apologies. I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Hi Mhaze,

No probs.

Clearly, some adherents to various backward religions (now, there's a tautology) are going to keep pushing until their particular religion is declared an 'ethnicity' and therefore never to be criticised, because it would be so obviously racist. The next step would be for its various backward idiocies to be declared sacrosanct, and also above criticism, no matter which Australians they affect, since eventually they would 'affect' all Australians, one way or another.

Women can then be assuredly declared to be witches - after all, many of them float, don't they ? Therefore they must be made of wood, like the Devil ? Therefore, they must - for the good of other Australians - be burned at the stake.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder who I can accuse of being a witch, there's that hot chick who knocked me back last week ...... and my next-door neighbour ..... and my other next-door neighbour .....

The last witch to be killed in Europe was supposed to be burned live in Hungary in 1928.

It would be so easy to, say, declare Christianity to be ethnic, since most of them are European. Therefore any criticism of it is clearly a racist attack on European ethnics. So no more jokes about Christ and Mary Magdalene, or saying 'Get thee behind me, Satan', (that would be so homophobic too), or about a nun and a horse walking into a bar.

Joe

The good Senator keeps tinkering around the edges.

A voluntary society, whose members are there by choice, has every right to restrict the behaviour of its members, including what they are allowed to say. Such a society has every right to guard the morals (or perceived morals) of its members, however it understands those morals.

A non-voluntary society, such as a state, has no similar rights.

Where a place is public, that is truly belonging to a public, I see no reason why that public should not be able to impose its norms over those who choose to visit there. This obviously is not the case in places that are not rightfully owned by the public, such as your own home or business, or that of friends who invite you.

«If you "insult" a registrar in bankruptcy proceedings»

It depends where this insult occurs. Has the registrar invaded your home? If so, then you should be able not only to insult but also to shoot him. If, however, the registrar is sitting in some public city-office and you come out to see him, then HIS rules should apply, not yours! If he wants to call you by any name, including "bankrupt", than its his call, his free speech.

«The same applies if you "insult" someone officiating over your entitlement as a veteran, or your claim to copyright.»

If you go to those officers, entering their space and asking for favours, then they have every right to demand that you do not insult them and to punish you if you do. Simply, don't ask for their favours and remain free!

---

Dear Joe,

«I hope we never get to the stage in the erosion of human rights in Australia when it is a criminal offence to criticise religious beliefs»

This is not on the cards and never was, perhaps in Putin's Russia, but not here, so lets get on with this important original topic.

Yeah it would be aweful if we could not speak the truth and call butchering the unborn murder and pointing out the obvious health risks of sodomy. The religion of secularism is very crude indeed as well as scientifically flawed.

You guys need to keep up-to-date. It might not be a criminal offence in Australia to criticise religion, but it is already illegal in the ACT http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-parliament-passes-religious-vilification-laws-20160804-gqlagu.html and I look forward to taking Joe to court for his scurrilous attack on me as a Christian.

I strongly object to people claiming that all religions are backward. Not only is it a misreading of Christianity, amongst others, but it denies the very rights that Joe and others enjoy by living in a Christian society. It was Christianity that invented the idea of universal human rights, as well as the idea that everyone is equal.

We are still struggling to get people in the world to accept these principles, with most living in countries where the principle that humans should be treated as equals is not even accepted in theory. So Christianity is still on the leading edge, unlike backwards philosophies, like, say Marxism, which, while paying lipservice to universal rights, insist on taking them away, such as in China, in the interests of the greater good, and privilege members of the party over all others.

BTW, relax Joe, wouldn't take you to court in the ACT, even though I probably could. As a Christian I'm also a member of a religion that invented the idea of free speech.

What a truly dreadful waste of space and money Canberra is: a mini-North Korea, plomped down in good sheep country. I'll bet there will never be any action or fines against anyone taking a swipe at Christianity,there. Ratty vilification laws are not there to protect religion; they are there to protect Islam, which is not a bona fide religion in any case. Islam is a whole-of-life doctrine, based on fear and hatred.

Christianity, like it of leave it, is a genuine religion of love. It is what has made us white, Western democrats what we are. Whether or not we call ourselves Christians or not, we have all been touched by it, we have all benefited from it - unlike all non-Christians, many of whom are still living in ignorance and POVERTY two millenia after the 'word'.

I never ceased to be amazed by people, who have had all the benefits of Christianity bestowed on them, rubbishing Christianity and comparing it to an insult-to-humanity like Islam. I'm not a good Christian. I do not 'witness' my faith. I am not a better person than anyone else. But I am a much better person than I would have been had I not been privileged to be born into a society based on Christianity.

Hi Graham,

Yes, I was bending over backwards not to attack that 'other' religion, knowing that Christianity provides, even for atheists, the moral foundations for the freedoms that we now enjoy. Christianity is robust enough to take a few back-handers :)

The Enlightenment, and its elaboration of human rights and freedoms, was, one way or another, an eventual outgrowth of the long history of conflicts between various Christian-based philosophies, and even we atheists should acknowledge our parentage. Would - can - Enlightenment values arise from any other religious foundation ? They don't seem to be making much headway so far, up to 2017.

Cheers,

Joe

yep the fundamentalist secularist to blind to see that their faith has produced putried man hating feminist, baby murderers and spiteful hateful bigots. As said many times they have more in common with Islam than they would like to admit.

I personally regard the author as a particularly nasty piece of work.

His latest offering was to tweet this little gem within an hour of 3 people being run down in Melbourne; “Probably one of those semi-automatic assault cars”.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/melbourne-cbd-david-leyonhjelm-slammed-for-semiautomatic-assault-cars-tweet/news-story/390871e0e1cd9f2f7d77ef352cde8940

Even One Nation Senator Roberts had the good sense to dial back his own contribution.

It is very hard to escape the obvious, Leyonhjelm wants to be free to trot out whatever bit of bile that takes his fancy without sanction.

When the Lyntt cafe idiot was sending letters to the widows of dead Australian servicemen there were those on this forum who defended his right to do so, based largely on their hatred of this law. While I think it could be tweeked I wanted 18C and the accompanying passages to retain the ability to sanction someone like Monis, to investigate hate speech emanating from fundamentalists in our Mosques and Churches, and empower people looking to rein in those flinging racist barbs over the boundary fences of our sporting grounds.

There are those who wish to incite and inflame and in doing so harm what we have managed to build in this country. That there should be sensible rules in place to deal with them is to me a given.

“It is very hard to escape the obvious, Leyonhjelm wants to be free to trot out whatever bit of bile that takes his fancy without sanction. “

You think so, Steele? Seems to me that you and your media mates have done a very good job of sanctioning him.

I must say, though, the tweet was tasteless and unforgivable. The Senator, like all politicians, should be examining their consciences and thinking about the fact that is they, the political class, who are responsible for allowing maniacs into the country.

But you, Steele, and the rest of the barking Left, need to realise that freedom of speech is for everybody in Australia, not just you.