I would like to know which verses of the Koran were read out by the Pastors, and what they said EXACTLY. Members of one religion should be able to read from another's sacred book verbatim without falling foul of this wide sweeping law. I look forward to an independent critique of the full report from the Tribunal.

I think the author's comments were pretty clear. He didn't seem to take any exception to Pastors reading from the Koran. I don't think he would disagree that people should be able to read from another religion's sacred book.

But it seems pretty serious to me when they're basically stating that Muslims are rapists, torturers and killers. According to the judge's summary, that was in the article that I think he said was the worst vilification. If you want to know exactly what was said, read that.

Seems to me that the argument that the Pastors were only reading from the Koran and that's it, is deceitful. Sounds like they said some pretty outrageous things that, like the article says, would be defamation of a person, or racial vilification of a racial group. I don't see any problem with a law that outlaws that.

I think that publishing the verses which were read out is central to this argument. I challenge the authorities to publish them on this site and in the Press so we can judge just how this situation developed. They are the starting point, and if you're reluctlant to do this, we can see that there's more to this than the Tribunal would have us believe. Let's have ALL the facts, not just what suits some people. This Law is too draconion, and this decision should be tested in higher Courts. Even Amir Butler is not happy with it,so I'm not alone by any means.

Let me correct that last line. It should read "Even Amir Butler is not happy with this Law [see his article "Why I Have Changed My Mind About Victoria's Anti-Vilification Law"]

"Surely we can tell the difference between a sincere critique of another faith, and a baseless assertion that Muslims will embark on a spree of rape, torture and killing of Australians."

If this is the case why not let people decide for themselves?

This is the challenge for the information age. Either we try and apply the old Industrial Age concept of trying to regulate and censor based on increasingly complex rules and regulations, or we give people the freedom to express their opinions and let the readers decide for themselves. The Industrial Age approach of "managing" society for its own good, is coming under pressure from all quarters. In the same way, the notion that some people are simply to dumb to decide for themselves is equally coming under pressure.

Instead of gagging or censoring, express the opposite opinion as clearly and as forcefully as possible and let people decide. Let your truth do the talking.

It is interesting to note that onlineopinion.com.au is practicing a little censoring of its own. In December last year I put forward an article for publication which exposes the inadequacies of an economic system based on self-interest. The initial response from Susan Prior was positive and she emailed me telling me that the piece would be published. In a subsequent email she told my piece "was hit on the head" without any offering any reason. My request for some explanation has fallen on deaf ears.

The article was picked up by www.onlinejournal.com and published with these words from the editor "great article and I will publish it." ACMICA (Australian Catholic Movement for Intellectual & Cultural Affairs www.acmica.org) thought the article good enough to include in their December Newsletter.

I subsequently followed up with a much short piece (as a bit of a test) which put forward an opposing view to Peter McMahon's piece "Morality, ideology and politics in the new global society" and, you guessed it, not even a peep from the editor.

Now onlineopinion.com.au prides itself on being different to the everyday newspapers and openly invites all opinions. It seems some opinions are more acceptable than others. In fact, it openly solicits for funds based on its open and fair approach to debate--which surely is a bit of false advertising, not to mention hypocritical.

The articles I've put forward are clearly good enough to publish, given the lack of response I can only conclude the reason for not publishing is because they conflict with the ideology of the people who run this site. (or more to the point it conflicts with the money men who fund this site)

This is the very attitude that is being challenged and needs to be challenged to ensure that our right to freedom of expression is not taken away. In the end, open and unfettered debate is the only safeguard we have against the tyranny of those wish to impose their worldview for the good of all of us.

If this comment gets through, I will be surprised. If it does and you wish to check out the articles in question and decide for yourself, you can find them at www.itsover.org under the category articles.

Oops I've already gone into 2005 mode ... the articles mentioned were submitted this year in December 2004