Amanda, you must be aware that FGM/FGC is unlawful throughout Australia. Hence to suggest that criticism of the practice or of instances of it would itself be unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act and would lead to the critic's being 'dragged through the Australian Human Rights Commission and probably the Courts' as well as subject to the 'slur of being an accused bigot', is a little far-fetched.

To suggest that anti-discrimination provisions would amount to the prohibition of blasphemy is also far-fetched. I am not sure if you are aware of the breadth of provisions against blasphemy that continue to operate in Australia (eg 'Blasphemy in Australia: The rags and remnants of persecution?', in Templeman J (ed.), Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression, Cambridge UP, 2017), and these provisions are rarely even acknowledged as existing, let alone subject to criticism. Helen Pringle

Blasphemy is wrong, mocking and hurting others is definitely wrong, but using the mechanism of state-violence against your fellow beings is even more wrong!

By asking for the state's assistance, the Grand Mufti was cutting off the branch that he sits on.

While I mostly agree with the article, I distance myself from its concluding remark:

«Without freedom of speech, democracy dies. No amount of “offence” is worth trading it away.»

Firstly, democracy in Australia can never die because it is already long dead.
Secondly, even if it were to die, I wouldn't shed a tear over it.
Thirdly, not-offending others is far more important than having a democracy... but that is exactly why the state should never offend people who speak their minds freely, including even those who speak foolishly.

Using the violence of legal-prosecution, is to counter the lesser verbal-abuse with the greater physical-abuse.

Fortunately, the Grand Mufti (is that title even recognised in Australia or any other non-Muslim country?) doesn't get a say; he doesn't speak English, is unlikely to be an Australian citizen, so can't vote. The Mufti does not believe in free-speech or democracy.

Robert Duffield is a Christian whose religion is the basis for both freedom of speech and democracy. Unlike the Mufti, who has taken advantage of the right to say what he thinks, Duffield would not last ten minutes in the sort of society Islam envisages for the West.

How dare an alien with a totally alien 'religion' and set of values presume to tell us what we should or should not be able to say!

Islam like securlarism are both death cults. That is why you have feminist and others frequently blaspheming Christ while excusing and turning blind eyes to barbarism. The slaughter of the unborn matches jihadism perfectly.

If the Grand Mufti wants to change our laws? Let him stand for popular election and on his, restriction of hard won freedom, platform!

Simply put, any philosophy founded on truth has nothing to fear from examination or the alleged ridicule of the abysmally ignorant!

For freedom of speech to remain free, it has to include the right to offend! Always providing it doesn't descend to quite deliberate intentional insult and abuse!

I mean, in some Muslim cultures, simply remarking, your wife is quite a looker can result in volcanic outrage and attempted decapitation!

As always entirely unreasonable folk, welded to demonstrably false doctrine, a cult! Will use any device to prevent any and all examination of their belief system, which could have included a flat earth in the centre of the universe, as official doctrine as little as half a century ago?

And it's never ever questioned nor examined, garbage like that, that has anchored a medieval culture, in a stone age, we've not seen in the west for around a thousand years!

And should this mere mortal pretend to know the mind of God and speak on his behalf as an official spokesman? He needs to leave and try to imprison the simpleminded minds somewhere else! Go and good riddance!

We don't need this control freak telling us when and what to think? Or park your brain in the foyer, when you go to wash your feet!
Alan B.

The trouble with Islam is that, were it not for the threat of violence, it is so easily ridiculed. All of the laws from Allah, as related to Mohammad, seemed curiously designed to favour Mohammad himself, and Allah was thus forced to include laws against blasphemy. All perfectly understandable, of course!

Yes, all religions have their origins in superstition, and really should all be held up to ridicule in any modern society. Richard Dawkins believes, as I do, that to force religious beliefs on young children should be viewed as a form of child abuse; that they should be allowed to form their own opinions when more mature. Good luck with that idea in any Islamic community!

Outlaw blasphemy? God no! I would rather it were made compulsory.

Dear Bob,

If I faced the difficult choice of having my child educated by either a Muslim Imam or by Richard Dawkins, then I would select the Imam.

Dawkins probably has his facts right while the Imam probably hasn't, but I care more for my child's heart to be at the right place than for his/her head to be filled with the right facts.

This particular Grand Mufti who is mentioned in the article, however, who wishes to use the brute power of the state to oppress others, does not have his heart in the right place and so, if it is between him and Dawkins then I would regretfully select Dawkins.

Ah yes another Right wing front the OZ institute of progress or AIP, IPA rearranged?when all these RW rabid defenders of Free Speech start lobbying for the removal or loosing of the defamation laws which are more of a preventive of Free Speech than 18c ever is.
But you wont hear a peep out the wealthy & privileged about that,nor the Lawyers,News Corp seem keen to shut down the HRC especially after Bolt the failed Googler got his knickers in a twist.
Now we have Trump in the US in the image of Murdoch Hannity,Faux News, an ignorant twisted proto II Duce,he not bright enough to be Adolf but he giving it a good try.
The Catholic Church has blasphemy laws, the way Trumps going going he will introduce them after he has shredded the 1st amendment, followed by others to take the US back to the early 18th century,pre Civil War or will they will be a rerun of the Depression

Beaucoupbob,

You think that giving children a religious grounding is child abuse; I believe that keeping them ignorant of Christianity is child abuse. One of the big regrets of my life is that I did not allow my children to receive religious knowledge. Consequently they, my grandchildren and my great grandchildren are totally ignorant of Christianity and the importance of its existence to the type of life we enjoy. I robbed them of an opportunity I had; robbed them of the choice to take it or leave after they knew what it was all about.

Blasphemy? People should say what they think. Some religionists call any criticism or difference of opinion, 'blasphemous' when they are nothing of the kind. Discussion must not be stifled by screeching blasphemy.

Many of the posts are further examples of the attempt of religion to impose its beliefs upon those who have questioning, thinking minds.

For centuries society has been told what to think, what to accept, what to believe by the industry of religion. Freedom is what is critical - freedom to learn, freedom to understand, freedom to accept or reject, and importantly, freedom from dogma.

By refusing the rantings of the religious hierarchy, we are firming our own independent rational thought. By analysing statements, not accepting them at face value, we will force proponents to be more factual in their argument.

the failed theory of evolution shows how easy it has been for the secular religion to dumb people down.

Ponder,

Try wrapping this around your "questioning, thinking" mind:

The militant secularists and humanists are the biggest propagandists in our society; they are the enforcers of dogma. Five days a week, in public schools, they ram their atheistic, socialist crap down the throats of our kids. By contrast, there hasn't been any Christian education in public schools since 1968

If my life and eternal salvation depended on the absolute almighty truth! And I had a choice between it and being brain washed right back to the stone age, because the latter warms the cockles of my heart/reinforces a predetermined conformation bias!

Then I'd chose the former!

Those that would chose the latter, demonstrate everything that is inherently evil with fundamental, organised, flawed, belief by indoctrination! The "Mufti's" position?

Thus we once justified slavery, lynch mobs and murder, unquestioning obedient incubator wives, who lost all their personal property rights with marriage, and "acceptable" child labour!

Me I'd opt for the truth and trust in that and that alone! Even if if cost me my every cherished dream! Cause sometimes that's the price you pay for staying true to the truth!
TBC, Alan B.

Peter Costello put it so well in his book -
"The Costello Memoirs,":

"In this country we have laws that we are all expected
to abide by. They are laws enacted by Parliament under
the Australian Constitution. Those laws protect the
freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals and conscience however
there is not a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants
Australian law in governing our civil society. The source
of our law is the democratically elected legislature.
That is the way it needs to remain."

Many people objected to the representation of "Piss Christ,"
many felt that galleries shouldn't show representations
like that. However we have to recognise that they
should be able to practise their "offensive" taste without
fear of violence or a riot. "Muslims don't like
representations of the Prophet. They don't think newspapers
should print them. But they too must recognise the fact
that this does not justify violence against newspapers or
countries that allow newspapers to publish them."

We need to make it quite clear that we are asking all
citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the
rights and liberties of all. This is not optional.
"We expect everyone living in this country to subscribe
to them. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia.
We are a secular country. There are countries that
apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Iran
come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law
there are countries where they might feel at ease. But not
Australia."

A long long time ago, a boy sat near his cooking fire while tending his fathers flock. Then out of the darkness came strangers and their horse drawn wagon.

They asked the lad for directions to the nearest inn and offered sweetmeats to win his trust.

Then as they turned to leave, they turned back so quickly the lad was completely take by surprise and unable to use the bow or sword his father had trusted him with! Bundled into the back of the wagon he was taken on a journey that seemed without end.

As they departed his small village, the last thing he heard was his own village bell. At journey's end he found himself standing in a Roman slave market!

For years he labored, winning his kind master's complete trust. Then one fateful morning was handed a bag of gold and ordered to saddle a horse and ride like the wind on some important errand.

As he rode off he formulated other plans and so began an interminable search for his homeland and devastated Parents.

He wandered for years eking out his gold store to survive and push on. From time to time the sound of a distant bell led him on,only to find, as he crested the last hill, it wasn't his beloved village.

Finally one day a very familiar ring lead him on and as he drew within sight, there beneath his gaze stood his very own village.

So also is it so for every human, who all have within them the ring of truth! And you will know it by the response it engenders within, when you hear absolute irrefutable truth!

And or, by the tiny small voice of doubt that tells you the opposite and which you ignore at your ultimate peril! There's no truth in anger, hate or revenge!
Alan B.

Dear Foxy,

«"In this country we have laws that we are all expected to abide by."»

Well this is a pretty violent declaration.

«We need to make it quite clear that we are asking all citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all. This is not optional.»

No problem about asking nicely, but do you mean "asking", or "ordering"?

A "framework" could contain anything, in this case well and beyond its stated purpose of protection. You may ASK others to subscribe to your framework and if they like it then they MAY subscribe to it, but the only thing that you are entitled to DEMAND is for others not to infringe on your liberties. Costello demanded much more and you seem to support his violent and unreasonable demands. In doing so, Costello undermined his own claims of supposedly opposing violence.

---

Dear Alan,

I am impressed!

If you side with truth and goodness, then you are already on God's side and you may not be in need of any further theology.

But let's face you in a dilemma: assume for the purpose of this exercise that your brain is wired for paedophilia, making you extremely and sometimes uncontrollably attracted sexually to young boys. Now assume that a hypnotist offers you a treatment whereby as a post-suggestion whenever your eyes see a young boy, your brain will actually convert his visual-image into the image of an old lady.

If you take that offer, then on the one hand your perception of facts would be untrue. On the other hand, this will unmask the truth of your heart whereby you love others and wish to not hurt them.

Which is better then: the truth of your eyes, the truth of your mind, the truth of your penis or the truth of your heart?

Dear Yuyutsu,

In this country to be an Australian citizen one
pledges loyalty first to Australia. One pledges
to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs -
to respect the rights and liberty of others and
to respect the rule of law.

There's a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we
have a consensus of support about how we will
form our legislatures and an agreement to abide
by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy our
rights and liberties without being threatened
by others. We have a compact to live under a
democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.
In doing this the rights and liberties of all are
protected. Terrorists and those who support them
do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of
others. The right to live without being bombed,
without being maimed, and as such they forfeit the
right to join in Australian citizenship.

Costello told us the story of the radical Muslim
cleric Ben Brika who when asked in an interview on
the 7.30 Report las year, "But don't you think
Australian Muslims - Muslims living in Australia also
have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?"
To which he answered. "This is a big problem. There are
two laws - there is an Australian law and there is an
Islamic law."

As Costello states, NO, this is not a big problem.
There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is
the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian
Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept
the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands
for. Our state is a secular state. As such it can
protect the freedom of all religions for worship.
There is not a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian
law in governing our civil society. The source of our law
is the democratically elected legislature.

Dear Foxy,

«One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic beliefs - [1] to respect the rights and liberty of others and [2] to respect the rule of law.»

Of these two I share only the first belief: respect for the rights and liberty of others. I have no idea why you label this ([1]) a "democratic" belief because it is universal and based on spiritual principles rather than on a particular system of governance.

You have gone to great lengths to explain the importance of [1], where you have my full agreement anyway, but provided no arguments in defence of [2].

As an interesting exercise, what do you do when [1] and [2] are in conflict?!

«Unless we have a consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by others»

Well we don't have a consensus, there never was any: a consensus means that EVERYONE agrees and that was never the case.

Does it mean that we will never be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened? No, because your statement is unsupported and in fact the above is not a necessary condition.

«We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.»

Under duress!

«In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.»

Not in a democracy, where a majority is able to destroy even the most cherished freedoms of minorities.

«If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.»

Indeed I don't. Accepting those "fundamentals" is mediocre: while terrorists and their ilk aim below it, it is also possible to aim above it!

«Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.»

"can" is different from "does". The existing record is patchy and favours the big established churches over individuals' and smaller groups' private religions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Most people in this country have a robust tolerance
of difference but to maintain this tolerance (cohesion
in our society) we have to have an agreed framework which
will protect the rights and liberties of all. Therefore
it is important that people know there are laws that are
going to be enforced whether they acknowledge their
legitimacy or not.

Foxy,

You wrote:
" We have a compact to live under a
democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.
In doing this the rights and liberties of all are
protected."

Except if one is a young Aboriginal woman living in a part of Australia where Customary Law is allowed to prevail, that's where equality and human rights go out the window.

One law for all Australians is very desireable but it is a target that has not been achieved.

Dear Is Mise,

The following link may help:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/aboriginality-disadvantage-and-sentencing

cont'd ...

This link also explains further:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/tribal-punishment-customary-law-payback

Ducking again, Foxy?

That link has nowt to do with the Courts allowing customary law to be enforced by unelected and largely ignorant tribal elders, nor does it address in any way the plight of young Aboriginal women who are given to old men under customary law.

There is no place in Australia for two sets of laws.

I cannot claim the Customary Law of my people when appearing before a court of law.

Accusing again Is Mise?

What you need to do is a bit of research concerning
Aboriginal Customary Law and Sentencing under
the existing law and practice and how judges
actually deal with it.

//I cannot claim the Customary Law of my people when appearing before a court of law.//

Yes you can. It's called 'common law' and it's quite important in our legal system.

Dear Foxy,

«Most people in this country have a robust tolerance of difference but to maintain this tolerance [(=?=)] we have to have an agreed framework which will protect the rights and liberties of all.»

That would have been excellent, but we don't have it.
What we have is a forced framework, not an agreed one.

Fortunately, despite your claim, those (which are most) of us who have a robust tolerance of difference, have not lost that tolerance due to this failure to have an agreed framework, which proves that such a framework is not strictly necessary.

Now in parentheses you mentioned: "tolerance (cohesion in our society)".
What has the one got to do with the other? It is quite possible to have tolerance without cohesion as well as cohesion without tolerance. Tolerance is important while cohesion is only one option among many.

«Therefore it is important that people know there are laws that are going to be enforced whether they acknowledge their legitimacy or not.»

Are you referring to people who are already tolerant anyway or to others who are intolerant? The former don't need laws while the latter are not going to become more tolerant due to such laws, only more afraid to act on their intolerance and more careful to not be caught when they do.

No-one, including yourself, is immune from the application of illegitimate laws. Perhaps you have not been much of a victim of such laws so far and I wish you never will, but when others in a majority are able to hit you with their laws, there may always come a time when you too might find yourself in a helpless minority.

Those with a robust tolerance of difference, do not harass those who are different to them, including with their laws.

A very good and well reasoned article, Amanda Stoker. Although it is odd that here in the western world today, we still need to even have discussions defending free speech.

The Grand Mufti's position is pure hypocrisy, given that his predecessor Sheik al Hilali was quoted as saying that Jews were "pigs."

As for the so called "feminist" lobby, which appears to be completely out of step with most women, another contradiction is evident. The feminist movement once sought to overthrow the very real male status quo which discriminated against women. here in Australia, women received lower pay for equal work to men. They could not enter hire purchase agreements without a male "guarantor." In the rural town of Broken Hill the unions decreed that married women were not allowed to work.

The feminist movement has one these battles but in the process has morphed into a totalitarian movement concerned only with complaint and enforcing it's own views upon others. It is in the nature of all organisations that sooner or later the moderates leave and the rabid and extreme take over. The extremists then become a different version of the very authoritarians that they once claimed were evil. The process then repeats itslf, where moderate and intelligent people ned to take on the new authoritarians to reform the original idea.

lastly, I disagree with Amanda that all people are born equal. That is simply a slogan which makes as much sense as 'Jesus died for you."

People are not equal, Amanda. They are not equal in intelligence, physical ability, physical appearance, temperament, or physical beauty. The policy of equality has never worked in any society. In every society, exemptions to equality has always been the rule from both the Left and the Right.

18C is perfectly reasonable as it is. Everyone is entitled not to be insulted in public space when the insults refer to his or her genetic make-up which is predetermined at birth.

Regrettably that Moslem freak who demanded that 18C be extended to religion has his counterpart in the ABC which routinely describes opposition to the march of Islam as racism. This showed in its reporting of events in Bendigo in which people objecting to the placement of a mosque clashed with people defending it. The ABC repeatedly described this as a clash with "anti-racist" demonstrators. It frequently uses the term "racist" in this way.

Choice of language speaks volumes about the ideology being peddled by the speaker. Rightly we offer protection to people's genetic inheritance and this is reflected in 18C, But this must not be allowed to protect from opprobrium voluntary adherents to a cult that hates our guts and wishes us harm.

Dear Julian,

«18C is perfectly reasonable as it is. Everyone is entitled not to be insulted in public space»

Absolutely so - however, 18C wrongly defines and extends "public" as:

«"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.»

- One's own business-premises for example, is not public and it should be only up to the owners to define the terms and conditions of entry for their guests. This forum itself is a virtual such place: we are here by invitation from Graham Young and only he should determine the rules here, including for example whether or not we are allowed to insult others on the basis of the colour of their shoes.