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

If I could just leave aside bitter attacks on this website and return to the topic for a moment...

I am amazed how persistently opponents of this law and the decision simply ignore the serious imputations raised by the case. In this thread already we've seen calls for producing the Koranic verses that the pastors quoted.

This misses the point spectacularly. No one's complaining about quoting verses of the Koran. Seems to me though, that people really are complaining about being branded rapists, terrorists, torturers and killers. That's not a religios comment - or a quote from the Koran. That's a statement about what Muslims will do as a matter of sociology.

Geomat, given your apparnet opposition to any restriction on free speech whatsoever, perhaps you would like to start an anti-defamation-law campaign. I hear some members of the Jewish community are taking action against One Nation for racial discrimination - perhaps you would like to speak out against that too. This is really the same thing, only the smears seem to be more serious to me. I can't imagine anyone getting this upset if it the statements were about Jews being rapists. We'd probably support their legal action and rightly so.

Perhaps you'd also like to name one country on Earth, or indeed one society in human history, that has ever functioned without some kind of restriction on free speech. To seek refuge in the concept of the information age is to ignore the very real social consequences of unreasonable hate speech that persist even today. The same kind of social consequences that lie at the heart of all laws that proscribe certain modes of speech.

You are missing the point Jasper. I want to see the WORDS OF THE VERSES FROM THE QURAN WHICH WERE READ OUT. WHAT WAS IN THEM WHICH STARTED THIS RUMPUS? ARE THE CONTENTS TOO AGRESSIVE TO PUBLISH? IN THAT CASE MAYBE THE PUBLISHERS OF THE QURAN AND OTHER LITERATURE QUOTED SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED! WE MUST HAVE THIS INFORMATION SO WE CAN INFORMATIVELY JUDGE THIS MATTER.

How do you conclude that the words from the verses of the Koran started the rumpus? Who do you conclude that these verses are the main issue?

That doesn't seem to be the case from the judgement.

Why do you keep falling back to the verses of the Koran? That really had very little to do with it. Calling all Muslims terrorists and rapists probably did though!

You're making straw men, or perhaps, distracting us with red herrings.

If you want to judge this matter informatively, then start engaging with the real vilification in this case. Stop hiding behind the idea that the verses quoted from the Koran have anything are anything more than tangential to the complaint.

Jasper, if you can't see that the sequence of events STARTED with the verses, you are the straw man wearing the red herrings. You are being deliberately obtuse, and doing an excellent job of it!

Slighty interesting that the person who wrote this article is a member of the ICV (Islamic Council of Victoria) and as such has a vested interest in having the case go in their favour.

Certainly no bias in this one (tongue in cheek).

This is a response to Geomat above who appears to think he has been "censored". His articles were rejected by us on the basis that they didn't reach our criteria of quality. There is only so much material that we can publish, so we have to choose. George may see this as censorship. If it is, it is a necessary part of publishing.

This site has a tiered approach to information. Our highest quality tier is the journal, On Line Opinion. We also have an email discussion list (OnLineOpinions), a blog aggregator (The Domain), and now these comment boxes. Various quality sieves are applied to each. The Domain is sieved according to the writers. We can't monitor every site, so we provide links to sites that publish consistently high quality commentary.

The comment boxes and OnLineOpinions are monitored for any breach of the law, or flaming. Apart from that any comment is allowed.

Anyone can read George's articles on his own site, and he is quite at liberty to mention them in posts to these boxes or the email discussion list. We're just not going to publish the two articles he mentions in On Line Opinion. They don't demonstrate a sufficient grasp of the subject matter, nor do they make points that others haven't made better. That doesn't mean we won't publish something of his in the future.

I can't answer for the editorial standards of the organisations who published George, but if he continues writing he will find that various organisations apply differing criteria. There is certainly no conspiracy at this site to suppress dissenting voices, as anyone who reads the journal will know. In fact, I'm not really sure what constitutes a dissenting voice - it seems to depend on what group you are in at the time. So we accept material from all sorts of people in all sorts of establishments - some that see themselves as dissenting, and some that don't.

George's suggestion that this site is funded by "money men" is a nonsense. The funding comes from the organisations listed as members, advertising, as well as from my own resources - the site runs very leanly. Perhaps if George spent more time researching his articles than he has done researching this comment he would find more publishers willing to publish them.

Jasper and Mr Aly may be happy to have the state decide what we may say but I'm not. One of the most fundamental rights in a free society is freedom of conscience, and the right to act on your conscience, in particular to speak your mind. From freedom conscience therefore flows freedom of speech, and your right to say whatever you wish no matter how offensive other people might find it. That other people may vilify things you hold dear or say offensive things is the price of free speech, it is the price you pay to be able to speak your mind freely. Once vilification and deep offence is accepted as a basis for restricting free-speech there is no end to the justifications for restricting free-speech. Why not bring back blasphemy laws, or sedition laws, or anti- political vilification laws preventing vilification of political opponents? Logically Jasper and Mr Aly would have to accept all of these but I suspect somehow they wouldn't!

Sadly in Australia no such right of free speech exists, rather the State condescends to allow us to say a wide range of things, without accepting any absolute right of free speech. Our defamation laws are a hangover from the Middle Ages where protecting honour was more important than freedom or truth, rather than using these are the justification for further restrictions on what people can say, they should be swept away, along with vilification laws and any other restrictions.

Mr Aly and Jasper clearly have a low commitment to the values of a free society if they don't understand it is underpinned by freedom of conscience and therefore free-speech, that is, free from state restrictions. The Anti-religious vilification laws should be repealed, yes to free speech no to state-coantrolled speech!

Thank you once again Waleed Aly for injecting some badly needed common sense into this over-heated arena. From the very little we know publicly of the Judgment, it seems reasonable to assume that it was not the verses (per se) that caused the problem, but rather the "additional comment" that followed the quotation.

After all, what is the point of any public quotation, unless it is your intention (as the one quoting) to either let the quote speak for itself, or to add some "comment" to the quotation so as to assist your audience to reach the same appreciation and understanding as yourself. If that is not the case, what is the point of quoting?

In the absence of the published text of the Judgment, we have to assume that the very few comments we have from the Judge were directed not to the act of quoting from the Koran, but to what followed after. Now unless anyone is prepared to state publicly that the Judge was an idiot, we have to accept that he knew what he was talking about – and it sounds to me like he did. If the interpretation of the law managed to upset you , that’s too bad; better luck next time and be thankful that we have a legal system that works a whole lot better than in some other countries.

Now if any person believes that the Judge was ill-informed, badly advised, or just plain wrong, well, I guess that’s fair enough. But it defies logic to then leap from that to saying the legislation is “bad” based upon the outcome in this one case. The point I make here is quite simple, and of universal application: If you get booked for speeding, no matter how worthwhile your reasons, and later on a Judge does not believe you and this interpretation displeases you, will you then say the Road Traffic Act is a bad law?

As I said before, if the interpretation managed to get up your nose, that’s too bad.

Get over it!

Big Al - sorry I don't see how the Koranic verses started all of this. In my reading of the case, it has much more to do with calling Muslims rapists and terrorists. That's not me being obtuse. I don't know how much clearer you require me to say that.

That some Koranic verses were quoted along the way is neither here nore there. That was not the basis of the complaint and it was not the basis of the judgement. I don't see why you think it should be the basis of our discussion.

Geoffrey - at least you're consistent. You want to abolish all form of restriction of free speech, including defamation. Fine. I'm happy for you to hold that view.

I think though that it's worth noting that no society on Earth seems to agree. I know of no time or place where free speech has been totally unfettered. Even in the United States, with all its constitutional guarantees, it is limited to some extent.

I also know of no serious movement to do away with defamation laws. There is a lot of discussion about defamation law reform, but none about abolishing it altogether. Every legal system seems to realise that when certain unjustifiable things are said, and this causes damage to another, that person should be able to recover something for that damage.

Geoffrey, it's great that you're a free speech advocate. I just hope you realise that you are advocating something that has never existed. That's fine, as long as you don't say our free speech is being threatened, since according to your definition, we never had it to begin with.

Hmmm. It seems to me that the experience of the last 30 or so years is that legislation that aims to limit the circumstances in which groups and individuals FEEL insulted, devalued or whatever have led to a spiralling mess of restriction on public speech.

If I say that I fear GroupA will rape/pillage GroupB, given half a chance, I am expressing an opinion. If I then say that GroupB members should "pre-emptively defend" (isn't English great?) themselves against my hypothesised threat, I'm inciting disorder to the point of public violence.

There've been several comments on the limits to free speech in this thread. The limit which I have always subscribed to is the line between expression of opinion, however misguided, malicious or ignorant, and the (attempted) incitement to action.

The problem with trying to prohibit expression of opinion is that, as constantly demonstrated here, in Europe and USA, the prohibited opinions go underground and, without exposure to counter argument and/or public ridicule (in themselves expression of opinions), fester into malignant growths within society.

If my feelings are hurt that's my problem; if my physical, civil or economic well being is violated, THAT, to me, is a legal problem.

One more thing: Waleed's title includes the phrase "hate inducing vilification". This presupposes that the hate, or predisposition to hate, did not exist in the affected listener prior to the speech. In my experience, the types of comment discussed here tend to occur within like minded groups. There's some merit in appealing to the need for individuals in positions of (supposed) authority to exercise responsible discretion in their comments, however that in and of itself presupposes as real the authority of fantasists who believe they are speaking on behalf of a diety.

"That other people may vilify things you hold dear or say offensive things is the price of free speech, it is the price you pay to be able to speak your mind freely." Geofrey, the validity of this statement depends on who the "you" is. The secular society and media has a whole lot of new taboos, most of them more subtle than those covered by the "blasphemy laws" of our Christian past, placing bounds — supported or not by law — on what you can and what you cannot say publicly. I am not a lawyer, and would probably agree that the fewer defamation laws the better, nevertheless the words of Walter Lippman come to my mind: "The right to speak freely is one of the necessary means to the attainment of the truth. That, and not the subjective pleasure of utterance, is why freedom is a necessity in the good society ... But when the chaff of silliness, baseness, and deception is so voluminous that it submerges the kernels of truth, freedom of speech may produce such frivolity, or such mischief, that it cannot be preserved against the demand for a restoration of order or of decency. If there is a dividing line between liberty and licence, it is where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit the ignorance, and to incite to passions...” [“The Public Philosophy”, Little, Brown & Co., 1956]

I wonder how the practices of the advertising, PR and marketing industries are reflected in Mr. Lippman's words quoted above: "... where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit ignorance, and to incite to passions...".

If we are going to regulate communication to attempt to ensure that it is always well considered, in good faith, free of any exploitation of ignorance or incitement of passions, we have ahead of us a task of mammoth complexity and extent. Where will all the censors come from, who will ensure that THEIR decisions are "well considered, etc." and how?

Hello All

Several points need to be answered. It is true that there is no country on earth that has absolute free-speech, however the USA comes very close. The only restrictions are defamation and obscenity, in the first case the plaintiff must prove the defendant's statements were maliciously false, in practice it is almost impossible to prove this, so successful defamation actions are very rare, and the Supreme Court has taken an very restrictive view of what is obscene, so these are rare as well. In real terms, then, there effectively exists absolute free-speech in United States, and just because it exists nowhere in a pure form doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for it or resist any restrictions on it. 70a% free speech is better than 65% free-speech and not as good as 80% free speech.

if someone says something objectionable the correct responses is to exercise your right of free speech to criticise them, or publicly denounce them and to show why their remarks are wrong and hurtful. In other words, the best corrective for abuses of free-speech is free speech!

To Jasper and George who accept restrictions on free-speech, what you in effect have said is the government has the right to determine what we can say, and we the people have no such right. Once this power is granted then there is no limit on what the government may choose to restrict, and those who accept the government can do this can't be heard to complain when the government restricts something they hold dear. It is always possible to raise utilitarian arguments as to why this power should not be exercised, but utilitarian arguments are wonderfully malleable things, for every argument you can advance as to why free speech shouldn't be restricted the government can advance the counterargument as why it should.

Take a close look at the men and women who make up our governments, they are mortals just like us, subject to the same passion and prejudices. If they have the right of absolute free-speech inside Parliament ( parliamentary privilege) then why can't we. If it is good enough for them then surely it is good enough for us. Others may be happy for people like this decide what we can and can't say but I'm not. Free speech for all!

democracy does not fuction at all,with this comes freedoms and with it comes freedoms that are extended beyond a democracy right,you say well informed society,half this counrty should not be informend in anything,based on the fact the information obtainend,wheather debated or not,under so called democracy,under so called freedoms,is then used agianst certain groups of society in all aspects of thier lives including socially,spiritually,financially.

some ideas should not be competting in the public domain,and talk dictatorship,this would not hurt australia at all,there are a few citizins in this counrty that have two much freedom and its about time a old -fashionend dictatorship was established to bring them into line,back into a australian reality.

freedom of speech is alive,when challenged,fight.freedom of speech can be absulute in this country,speak what you will and then fight for those words in which you claim

and when it comes to muslims,yes they wish to take over the world,in this counrty they should have no ''passage of faith'' more then a christain or a cathlic,no special rooms to pray ,no special treatment,no special food,etc,etc,it is a religion based on hate for others and hate for other societys and must never take hold of our great nation.

it must be suppresed in all forms and be made illegal and the involved must be re-educated on morals,esp tollerance of other ideas.

muslims may not turture and rape australians etc,etc,however they will gain traditions in this counrty that will result in discrimination such as dress,special areas to dwell,segregation(exactly what they claim happens to them,they want to obtain anyway),this that or the other,you cant have your democracy,as well as muslim traditions in a country with none,but then surpress any debate to it,this is a democracy,this is australia,and the quicker the muslim faith is destoyed,the quicker man can inprove the world,and no longer will a evil ''sect' hold the world ransom to its needs and domination,and finally,other religions have killed and commited mass murder,however if your a christain visiting a muslim nation dont you have strict rules to folow (people have been killed not observing muslim laws)well this is australia and its about time muslims shut thier mounth,obayed the laws of the commenwealth,obayed our christain catholic heritage and become australians,if not we have plenty of airports and shipping ports in which you can leave.

Jasper, I'm still here, haven't baled out. The reason why I think the verses from the Koran [or is it Quran?] are the starting point and must be known is this: Much has been written about the comments which the Pastors made. I know of one person at the hearings who contests some of the Judge's statements. Be that as it may, they are given as the reason for the conviction. Ask youself what were they commenting on? What was in the verses to prompt them to react with those comments? I've seen some verses quoted in the daily Press,some time previously, and they would make one's blood run cold, regarding forced conversions, and death if conversion was not forthcoming. Now maybe the verses concerned stated something like this, in which case the comments may well have been TRUE and REASONABLE. I repeat, what WAS in those verses?

Might I add, until we know the actual words the Pastors were commenting on, how can we judge whether their comments were completely out of line or a reasonable and true reaction to the contents of the verses?

BIG AL......
u are on the right track....instead of just responding to the opinions of Mr Waleed Aly who expresses himself in rather 'balanced journalistic' terms.. u want to get to the facts of the case. Well I'll help you. Take this link
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/islamic_council_of_victoria_v_catch_the_fire_ministries.pdf

A submission by CTF is found here.. in response to the allegations.

http://www.catchthefire.com.au/pdfs/Catch%20The%20Fire%20Ministries%20Submission%20to%20EOC.pdf

But let me also say, there has been a sad lack of understanding of the sub cultural/pentecostal 'way of doing things' in meetings. They are quite the "woop it up" type... lots of 'AMEN's and HALELUJAH's and 'YES LORD's" it goes with the territory. When one wishes to determine if the pastors are making HATE speech.. it HAS to be interpreted in THEIR subcultural value system NOT the secular one. As one of the 'spies' found out when he asked the Pastor (not telling he was a muslim) 'how should Christians treat Muslims" ? Pastor replied to his face 'THEY SHOULD LOVE THEM' I grant, that the terminology of some things they said, was a bit more than I would prefer to have heard... the main one being 'Muslims are demons' if that was correctly recorded. As for the rest.. well u can decide for yourself, the references provided by the Pastors ARE VERY SPECIFIC and comprehensive. I'll take just ONE other accusation. "Muslims will torture" Ok.. where would they derive such a thought from ? Simple.. by adding 2 facts together. 1/ Mohammed is held up as a ROLE model. "Our beloved prophet" they say. Now.. see how he treated some people who stole his camels and killed his shepherd.

Before showing that tradition, here is a quote from the INTRODUCTION of the book of hadith of Muslim (a highly regarded source)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Western scholars have indulged in a good deal of mud-slinging on the question of the use of the sword in Islam. But if one were to reflect calmly on this point one would be convinced that the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see that.. 'purely.. with humane feelings' ? hold that thought..
Now..contrast this, with a tradition contained in that book itself
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Book 016, Number 4131 <== SOURCE find it at this link
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/016.smt.html

Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet).

He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now.. as far as I know, there is no such prescribed punishment in Islamic law apart from cutting off hands for theft.. and if there is, it would be in my opinion disgusting.

But this, according to reliable tradition, is what Mohammed actually ordered directly himself. One has to think a bit about how it would be, to have ur feet cut off, etc... no eyes.. bleeding.. dying.. a simple execution would have been HUMANE... note that word ? U recall what I said above about 'hold that thought' from the Introduction ?

Now.. having said all that..and having tried to be as factual as possible, with the least amount of spin and interpretation. I just invite you to ask a few basic questions about all this, and perhaps.. u can begin to see why the CTF pastors.. were so adamant and passionate in their criticism.

Before anyone jumps on me as being 'anti muslim' I would remind them that these are simple facts, which generally but for obvious reasons, do not show up on 'Introduction to Islam' pages on Islamic web sites.. The real "HATE" sites use a rather large number of additional adjectives to add color to these incidents. I prefer not to do that. This is definitely public interest.
Hope this helps

To Jasper

Jas.. u referred to 'speaking of people as rapists and killers' could be offensive.. sure enuf it is. It was too much of a generalization.

The wierd thing though is... that the extremists who should have been identified separately from 'mainstream' Islam...are closer to the example of the Prophet than the mainstreamers. If u compare the actions of the 'extremists' with the Life and behavior of Mohammed.. u will see that pretty much all of what they do/ are doing (Sudan, Iraq) with the exception of technology related stuff, was also done by the Prophet.. doesn't anyone notice the intense use of the Quran by these guys just before they slice and dice some poor souls head off ??? Just because 'minority status' Muslims in peaceful Australia are not lopping off heads.. does not mean that such things do not happen in other places in the name of and in the example of the Prophet. I advise you to read carefully all the hadith of Muslim and Bhukari.. the 2 most respected sources. Look at the book of Jihad.. u will see some amazing things.

PILGRIM

Regarding the Judges decision. Let me tell u a story. There once was a group of missionaries heading to Africa. They identified the tribe they wished to contact.. and approached from a particular direction. The tribes people laid an ambush, killed them, and ate them. Why ? simple. The missionaries had approached the village by the route their traditional ENEMIES used when attacking that tribe. Moral.. KNOW ur background before deciding on a course of action. In the case of the Judge. he just does not understand (it would seem) the Pentecostal culture. The constant reference to 'holding up to mockery' is easily explained in terms of what I mentioned in a different reply.. the 'woop it up' style of meeting. While they went further and braver than most of us would, I challenge you to look at some Islamic sites ( try lakemba mosque) and u will find there 'zionist thugs' referred to..which is clearly anti-semitic and would definitely be ACTIONABLE under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Religous groups tend to use COLORFUL language. The main problem with CTF is that it is all based on COLLUSION (by EOC and ICV) and the DELIBERATE attempt to entrap and silence percieved anti Islamic sentiment. So, in my opinion, this case should be about the CULTURE OF SPYING on ur neighbour.

How about dealing with what Waleed Aly actually said:
"One defendant argued that Muslims have a plan to take over Western democracy through violence and terror, and to replace it with repressive regimes; another argued that Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia."
Neither of these statements was made by the defendants. Just shows how things get distorted when people put words in other peoples' mouths...
As well as that, there were many errors in the Decision that seem to have become 'true' - for instance, it is said that Pastor Scot said "Muslims are demons". He DID NOT SAY THAT! He DID read from the Qur'an where jinn (demons) came to Mohammed and became Muslims. This is not the same thing - a grave injustice is done to Pastor Scot by this statement.
As to following the Qur'an and Mohammed, as one person commented on, it is interesting that this is the FIRST objective of the Islamic Council of Victoria...
"To vigilantly maintain and apply the true Islamic doctrines as, contained in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunna as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed (May Allah's Blessings and Mercy be Upon Him) at all times in the carrying out of the objects of this Constitution."
See http://www.icv.org.au/abouticv.shtml

Waleed Aly says "This was not a serious discussion of religious beliefs. It was nothing more than pure hate speech."
I was at the seminar - the speaker was certainly NOT 'hateful'. In fact when one man, in fact we now know it was one of the complainants, asked what we should do now, Pastor Scot responded "...But we start then building friendship with them. And don’t get involved in religion. Just know them as a person, and show interest in them as a person. Always of same sex, OK, very important. And then when you have built friendship, you have built trust, then you may share your testimony."
He encouraged people to love Muslims. Hardly hate!
This case shows that the law is seriously flawed and causes more disharmony in the community.

Although I have only been following this case for a short time, I wish to place a few things on the table. The first is that freedom of speech, association, worship and a host of others are important and have certainly been part of the Australian democratic experience. And while we need to be careful not to defame others, we ought to be able to express our opinions without fear of retribution, particularly by the state.

It is when the state clamps down on opinion that we need to be very, very careful. I fear that this case and the Act behind it will act as a deterrent for those in the State of Victoria and in other jurisdictions where such similar laws exist, to express their opinions. We may not agree with opinions by various people, be they Government ministers or the next door neighbour, but we should certainly value the OPPORTUNITY to express, without fear or favour, our opinions via free speech.

I urge all Australians to write to their MPs, both state and federal, to encourage them to discard any plans to restrict freedom of speech.

Andrew Dinham

The Victorian Religious Vilification Law, has plunged Victoria back into the 'dark ages' by introducing Blasphemy Law administered by the secular State; with the express purpose of the protection of a religion that might otherwise gain criticism or ridicule. These laws initiated to bring religious harmony have generated the very opposite of harmony. It has distanced these communities from each other because of fear innocent speech will violate the law, and the intolerant will litigate through the Court.

The Department of Multicultural Affairs are more concerned about the protection, propagation and acceptance of Islam in Australia than the right of all Australian citizens to free opposing speech with respect, goodwill and without civil conflict.

Judge Higgins has heard what some Muslims considered offensive speech upon an interpretation of Islam. In fact some unidentified persons were organised to be present at the seminar, by the Department of Multicultural affairs. This act clearly undermines multicultural democracy and religious diversity.

During the period of the case against Daniel Scott, his wife’s nephew in Pakistan was taken hostage and murdered by Muslims and his body dumped.

Any definition by our Courts of an orthodox view denies free speech and outlaws especially the personal belief or expression of a dissident, eg Rusdie. For the secular Court to rule on a definition of what is acceptable theology actually denies another's free thought or expression.

Under this law Salman Rushdie would be imprisoned in Australia for vilifying Islam. The State is descending into Religious control of the population with penalties for heretics and offenders of a State recognised orthodox religious belief. The founding Christians Fathers of the State believed the secular State must not administer Religious Law.

The Religious Vilification laws were practised by the Roman Catholic Church in the 'Dark Ages' that burnt heretics at the stake, or Muslim Clerics who beheaded infidels. Atheists or antagonists who speak hostile opposition of a religion would be constantly in our Courts under this law. Australia's Secular State, allows all men freedom of belief, no matter how misguided

The Religious vilification Law has removed my right of reward in heaven by my choice to practising the grace of Christ like tolerance.

The teaching of Christ Matthew 5: 10 -12, "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Verbal insults and false claims made about the Christian faith has allowed the graces of their religion of tolerate and turn the other cheek. The restriction on speech no matter how misguided or offensive denies the development of Christian character. This law places Christians who wish to practise their faith at a social disadvantage when they tolerate rather than litigate.

This law has encouraged the intolerant to litigate for damages on an issue they feel vilifies them. This law accomodates the intolerant Christian to abandon faith to seek financial damages. In the Victorian experience it is the intolerant who use these laws, on little evidence, eg Alpha. Such seeking of damages does not represent tolerance but intolerance and maybe motivated by power over another or greed.

Though for Christians insults and persecution is unpleasant it happens to shape their faith and hone their thought and belief and develop character. It is my belief that unless a referendum is held to support such Law it should be repealed, because it incites religious division and gives power to the one who pursues damages. This law is offensive to a democratic secular State when a person is not able to express a personal opinion about another religion or world-view without fear of litigation. This law represents the view of a totalitarian world and is anti-Christian and undemocratic according to the Australian ethos of ridicule and should be repealed.

UNCHR: PROTECTING ISLAM

On Tuesday 12 April 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), in Geneva, Switzerland, passed Human Rights Resolution 2005/3 entitled, "Combating Defamation of Religions".

Islam On Line reported: ".. a resolution calling for combating defamation campaigns against Islam and Muslims in the West."

Ehtasham Khan reports from Geneva for Rediff.com (India), "The resolution was pushed forward by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference. It was put under Agenda Item 6 that deals with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination."

Khan reports that the United States, United Kingdom and Israel were amongst those nations that voted against the resolution on the grounds that it was unbalanced and biased.

UNCHR Resolution 2005/3 completely fails to address the issue of human rights violations that are legitimised by discriminatory and barbaric religious mandates.

The resolution was formulated by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and specifically seeks that Islam be protected from "defamation".

Historically, inherent in the charge of defamation is the falsity of the statement. If a person can prove that their statement is true, they cannot be said to have defamed.

Clearly, accusing Islam of being associated with human rights violations is, according to the UNCHR, an act of defamation of Islam. This presents a serious challenge and threat to human rights advocates and reporters. The UNCHR resolution also guarantees that those who pursue an agenda to defame Islam will be branded "extremists".

The UNCHR resolution calls upon States to "actively combat defamation of religions, Islam and Muslims in particular especially in human rights forums". It also calls upon States to provide constitutional and legal protection of Islam against defamation and its consequences, i.e. lack of respect, or hatred.

The UNCHR resolution requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to examine the situation of Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world and monitor defamation of Islam. The Special Rapporteur will report his findings to the Commission at its 62nd session (April 2006) and make recommendations to improve their situation.