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.