Loudmouth: "Have we got to the point where we can't express a point of view ? I'm sure that most Muslims would probably agree with him and, given half a chance (if ever Shari'a was introduced), would certainly act on those 'opinions' rather than just reflect on them."

I am reminded of something that historian Geoffrey Blainey recently wrote about the experience of Muslims in Australia:

"A few important Muslim leaders regretted that Australian society, as they experienced it, defied their beliefs and preachings. In their eyes it was decadent and irreligious. And yet one century earlier, a host of Australian churchgoers would have agreed with the mainstream Muslim suspicion of alcohol, drugs, pornography, party-going, scantily clad women, blasphemous language, suicide, homosexuality and the Sabbath. It was the Christians who, in the following four generations, relaxed their views on these social questions. They became more tolerant at a time when sections of Islam were becoming less tolerant."

I do agree with your point that this is becoming a witch-hunt against practicing and traditional Christians. Anybody in contemporary Australian public life who expresses views in line with traditional Christian teachings is basically inviting character assassination. Our post-Christian elites have turned against the religion that shaped our civilisation.

LEGO wrote: "One wonders where our much respected Human Rights industry is on this one?"

Interesting, isn't it? The growth of the human rights 'industry' in Australia seems to have coincided with increased limits on freedoms of speech and religion (well, one particular religion: Christianity).

you sum it up well Bozec

Dear Banjo Patterson.

What Rugby Australia should have written is this.

"Rugby Australia supports the absolute right of any citizen of a free country to engage in freedom of speech. The freedom to express beliefs or to criticize the beliefs of others is the foundation of democracy. Without freedom of speech we can not defend any other freedom, nor can a free people make informed decisions as to what their government's policies should be. Because in a democracy, the government is the servant of the people, not the masters of the people. We in Rugby Australia disagree with what Israel Folau said, but we will defend to the death his right to say it.

Hear, Hear!

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« What Rugby Australia should have written is this. "Rugby Australia supports the absolute right of any citizen of a free country to engage in freedom of speech … We in Rugby Australia disagree with what Israel Folau said, but we will defend to the death his right to say it »

I thoroughly agree with you that freedom of speech is a very precious individual human right. Like all individual rights, it’s only limited by the rights of all others – in this instance, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of the legal situation in all the Australian states and territories regarding publicly threatening or inciting violence on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or HIV/AIDS status, but here is an article on the legal situation in New South Wales and a brief explanatory note on the bill that was passed in 2018 :

http://hornet.com/stories/crimes-amendment-australian-homophobia/

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3524/XN%20Crimes%20Amendment%20(Publicly%20Threatening%20and%20Inciting%20Violence)%20Bill.pdf
.

It will be interesting to see if Israel Folau takes the matter to court. I’m not sure it would be in his best interests to do so. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Quite frankly, I think the first freedom to be protected is the right of consenting adults to live their lives as they wish with whoever they wish – as long as they don’t encroach on the lives of others. What they do is their business and nobody else’s. If they end up in hell, that’s their problem.

If Israel Folau wants to express his opinion about LGBT people’s sexual orientations and practices, he should be free to do so, but in a calm and reasonable manner – not in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. He should refrain from repeatedly making outlandish public statements and trying to force his misinformed, archaic religious beliefs on others.

I have no idea which particular religion he adheres to. But if anyone should speak out and condemn his attitude, in my opinion, it’s the chief witchdoctor of that particular religion.

.