I too am appalled at the Victorian Court Decision. It is not unkown for religious leaders of all sets and denominations to try and impose their world view on an otherwise free and secular society. What better defence is there against religion then satire and humour?

As for christianity v islam in Victoria. Expect the return match in the courts at any tick of the clock.

Yet again it seems that people with an anti muslim agenda are using this case to further their anti muslim cause. The author touches on the rise of islamic fundamentalism but fails to mention the rise of christian fundamentlalism as seen through the recent US elections and the emergence of the quaintly named "families first". As per usual the author has to highlight attrocities that extremists are committing to promote his case. This is akin to raising the spectre of the Ku Klux Klan in every discussion of the christian faith.

The issue is that these preachers selectively used tracts of scripture with the specific intent of denegrating the islamic faith.

I find it incredibly misinformative that that opponents of this decision fail to mention that one of the two pastors/preachers argued that Muslims have a plan to take over Western democracy through violence and terror, and to replace it with repressive regimes; while the other argued that Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia.

This statement can be nothing but an attempt to whip up racial hatred.

Harmless religion or destructive cult,how do you tell?

Dr.Lifton compiled the classic 8 signature marks of a destructive cult ( pack {package} of lies) in his masterpiece [ca.1961].Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism,

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton.htm

"Judge Higgins is critical of the way the Catch the Fire Ministries' seminar was conducted, and particularly that it was seen to ridicule Islam. However, this view is generally not supported by those non-Muslims present" The people who are doing the attacking are hardly the ones to ask!

A pastor in the US has put up a statue of a murdered gay man on the lawns of his church. The statue is not to acknowledge his tragic death but to celebrate it. Two of the pastor’s followers after a sermon about the evils of homo’s. They grab the first gay they saw and tied him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him down behind around town until he died. The said pastor then went to the young mans funeral and heckled his parents and other about the evils of being gay and how the man was now burning in hell.

Should I draw a line here and say that all true Christians behave like this! I think if a Muslim group said this in a public seminar in which a couple of Christians had been invited do you think the Christians would have felt unhappy vilified even.

Is this the kind of free speech your after, perhaps you would like me to tell you how to make a bomb. Should a child rapist be able to set up a website on how to pickup kids. The only people concerned with the idea of political correctness are don’t the idea of offending and alienating people. I say to you only people of bad will wish to have to right to abuse people.

The Author of this article fails to list his personal agenda, hiding behind the appearance of objective journalism. The fact is that the Victorian Commission did not object at all to the discussion of the tenets and teaching od islam but rather the manner of the discussio0n and the obvious "hate" language associated with the discussion. perhaps we should compare some of the "literal" Biblical Passages with the "literal" Koran Passages? How about we start with Deuteronomy 20:16-17. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is a world of difference between inteligent and rational debate and emotive stone throwing masquerading as intelligent debate.

Hello Everybody

Should vilification be outlawed? It seems to me one of the underlying assumptions is that vilification will “cause” some people to do bad acts and so should be banned. This pessimistic assumption denies the power of free will and choice. Each of us is free to believe as we will and act on those beliefs, if I assault a homosexual or Moslem or anyone else it is because I chose to, the fact I listened to a speech which may have inflamed me is NOT an excuse, each of us is free to chose our actions. To use Kenny’s examples, should people be free to publish bomb making instructions or advice on how to prey on children; yes, they should. If I choose to build a bomb and kill some people it is my fault. I chose to find the web site, I chose to build the bomb, and I chose to explode it. I am responsible, no one else is! The idea that incitement or vilification “causes” crime is an attack on freedom itself, if we are not free to chose our actions then it follows we need to be restrained for our own good.

So there should be no anti-vilification laws or any other restriction on free speech (this includes defamation). Remember, our politicians have an absolute right of free speech in parliament (parliamentary privilege, they can say ANYTHING and not be subject to any legal action), if it is good enough for them it is good enough for the rest of us. Free speech for all!

Geoffrey, you can't be serious. You really believe it is okay for people publish advice on how to prey on children?

Hello Dmac

"Geoffrey, you can't be serious. You really believe it is okay for people publish advice on how to prey on children?"

As a legal right, yes. However, we should all exercise our moral judgements when dealing with such a person. I as a webmaster or any kind of publisher would refuse to publish any such filth, and would denounce anyone who tried to do so. I am sure severe social pressure and ostracism would strongly discourage such activities, in decades gone by this was the main method of controlling unacceptable deviant behaviour.

It is easy to find something that almost everyone finds objectionable and claim it shouldn't be allowed to be published. This then is used as a precedent to ban something slightly less objectionable , and so on, and freedom of speech is whittled away to nothing. Freedom of speech encompasses the lofty and the depraved, the banal and the enlightened, and such material being published is the price of the rest of us being able to enjoy free speech.

Freedom demands personal responsibility, accepting your own actions and judging others, it can be hard. Unfortunately today too many people want to outsource making moral judgements to the government, the problem with this is: whose morality do we use? Making moral judgements belongs with individuals, not governments.

There's free speech and then there's free speech. You could argue that a persons right to free speech could include arguing for the legalization of sex with children. But surely you couldn't extend that to publishing child porn or detailing how to go about "grooming" children for sex. The two are very different.

The whole concept of free speech cannot possibly be absolute. Common sense should dictate that a line must be drawn somewhere.

Whose morality do we use? Thats easy the ones that most of us agree on. Havn't we made moral judgments about murder, rape and such with our laws. Some groups moral codes don't have problem with killing people as punishment for crimes. Yet we as a nation have made laws against capital punishment. Geoffrey you seem to think that words cannot hurt or drive people to do things they might not orther wise do. The reality does not bare this out there are cults of personality throught out our history. The old sticks and stones line doesn't work for everybody.

The fact is that "villification", and rational and objective debate are unrelated. Words are powerful and it is well established that they DO influence people in the way they are said and used and in the tones. Orwell postulated "Newspeak" as a way of controlling and influencing opinions. I do not like political correctness where some issues are OFF THE AGENDA, but on the other hand I recognise the manipulative power related to the use of words in the wrong hands. Is it the Middle Eastern God, or the twists people have placed on the Word Of God, that have driven people to murder, torture, war? The bible recognises the power of words "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word WAS God!" What more powerful statement than this exists about the power of "word". Any Christian will reconise this as indicating that Word and language is a powerful tool and weapon. There is no restrictions on Christians using words to brainwash their children, although if non christians did the same thing it is termed abuse. All a matter of perspective really. Fact is, the wounds from sticks and stones will heal, the wounds from words and psych trauma may never heal. The pen IS mightier than the sword, particularly when USED as a sword. Never forget that! The anti villification laws do not restrict debate they restrict villification - NOT the same thing!

Special for DMAC.....
Ok... lets get some TRUTH into the field here.

1/ You convenienlty chose to IGNORE the reported 'COLLUSION' between the Islamic council of Vic and the Equal Opportunity, to send SPIES..(they were invited by May Helou, womens information officer of the Islamic council at the time) NOT by the Pastors. Apart from anythng else, it was 'entrapment'
2/ The pastors in my opinion went just a little further than appropriate, if correctly reported by saying "Muslims are Demons" I find it very hard to accept that they actually said this, because it would be more likely for them to say 'Muslims are demon possessed' which is still a bit further than I would go. I'd be prepared to say "there is a strong demonic influence on some Muslims" as would apply to people in any non Christian religion, but not all.
3/ Jehovahs witnesses will allow a baby or small child to die before they will give a blood transfusion (if there is no alternative treatment available which would work). That is a fact. Now.. I believe that a regular Christian, should be able to speak PASSIONATELY about this, and show by virtue of the fact that Jews, who's culture and religion the verses which JW's use to 'prove' that this is Gods will, DON'T believe this is what God was saying. So.. it would be quite in order for a Christian pastor to condemn such acts as 'child abuse', "child neglect" 'the moral equivalent of murder' in THEIR OWN CHURCHES. At the same time, they would NOT be urging 'hate' toward Jehovahs witnesses, they would be urging Christians to reach out to them JUST as the 2 Catch the Fire Pastors were doing ! I think DMAC..on the subject of 'Do Muslims have a plan to take over Australia' you should see the witness statement of Mark Durie, and READ the results of his research easily VERIFIED by a quick trip to the ICV bookshop and a check of the CURRICULUM texts used for Islamic education in Victoria !!!! You will readily see, that the only 'imbelishment' added by the pastors, was 'by violence and terror' which again, is a bit over the top. But in principle, 'take over' by 'stealth' or 'take over' by 'violence'..the end result is the SAME.

Now.. lets take the subject of 'CHILD MOLESTATION' and RELIGIOUS ROLE MODELS. It is a simple fact, that Australian Law, describes sexual activity with pubescant girls under 16 as 'statutory rape or child abuse/molesation' I don't need to tell you WHO married and became sexually involved with a 9 yrs old girl..do I ????????? U can give this any name u like, but a man who is not 18...not 25...not even 35..but 50+ !!!! taking a girl of this age.. is extremely repulsive and disgusting to the Western World, (oops..forgot..the DECADENT Western world) Now, either we have 'got it wrong' and should adjust our morality to suit '6th century Arabia' or.. maybe the whole idea of such acts should be questioned. I have found that children as young as 10 were being married in Arabia up to the 12th Century. So, this adds support to the view that marrying children so young was NOT somthing which 'faded out, was phased out by Islam' etc.

When considering issues of 'vilification' we should not be asking 'were they offended' by this or that remark..but 'IS IT TRUE'!!! The Judge declared that the Pastors failed to differentiate between 'Mainstream Islam', and 'a small group of States in the Gulf', but what he FAILED to see, was that a) Saudi Arabia has never been colonized by a western power, and Wahabism was very much like our Reformation, a 'return' to fundamentals. i.e. 'mainstream' Islam should be judged by the level to which states adhere to the fundamentals. Hence, the gulf states are a GOOD example of 'mainstream' Islam (in a majority status) The other point he neglected is that "Islam in a minority status" will generally be much more benign and tame than Islam in a MAJORITY status. This is well supported by the nations where Islam is a majority.

So, in Summary:

a) The pastors DID speak mainly 'truth'
b) They did add a bit more colorful language than 'robust debate and serious discussion' require, but keep in mind it is an audience forum, intended for Christians.
c) Such langauge is not uncommon in Mosques in regard to Christians
What is it the Quran says about 'those who claim God has associates'??? u know the answer.
d) Its more preferable that (apart from direct incitement to violence and actual hatred)both faiths have the freedom to describe the other as they feel.
e) Is it appropriate to hold up as a 'role model' one who under Australian law, would be Jailed as a Child molestor ???

PASTOR FRED PHELPS, GAY KILLING.
For the record, this guy, and his action are definitely NOT an example of anything but the most rabid extremist loony fringe of the Christian Spectrum. If gays were to be put to death, it would need to be State Law, not 'Christian enthusiasm'. So.. unless one wishes us to keep referring to Osama Bin Laden as the 'typical' muslim, please refrain from using the worst examples of so called Christian behavior to score propoganda points. If u want to pick on us.. examine JESUS.. he can handle it.

Hello All

“The anti vilification laws do not restrict debate they restrict vilification - NOT the same thing!”

I wish people who are against free speech (and therefore in favour of the government controlling what we are allowed to say) would come right out and say they don’t believe in free speech. Instead we get intellectual contortions of the kind quoted above; that vilification isn’t free speech, slander isn’t free speech, sedition isn’t free speech etc. Free speech is speech free from restrictions, if you believe the government should restrict what we can say then we don’t have free speech, and no amount of sophistry will alter this fact.

I stand by my previous point, we are each masters of our own actions. Suppose someone “incites” someone else to commit a crime by vilifying a hated group, knowing that the person they are speaking to has an inveterate hatred of such a group, and that his words may well inflame his passion enough that he will commit a crime. Although the agitator’s words are part of a causal chain, ultimately the person who commits the crime should be held accountable, to accept otherwise is to accept a world view that we are just all animals, our actions governed by outside forces and inner impulses we have no control over.

The best cure for abuses of free speech is free speech. I reiterate my previous point, parliamentarians have ABSOULTE free speech inside the houses of parliament, if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for the rest. The reason given for Parliamentary Privilege, that it should be used to expose wrongs and injustices without fear of being sued for defamation or vilification, apply to us all. Free speech for all and forever!

Several posts make it clear that support for these Anti-Vilification laws is largely motivated by anti-Christian bigotry e.g. “There is no restrictions on Christians using words to brainwash their children, although if non Christians did the same thing it is termed abuse” (this comment seems like anti-Christian vilification to me, I wonder if the poster lives in Victoria…). In England such laws have been in place for several years, and so far have been used by militant atheists, pagans and Muslim to sue Christians. Typically the Tribunal that oversee such laws are staffed by anti-Christian bigots who often help complainants against Christians (see previous post) so in effect these laws become state sponsored persecution of Christians.

Others may be happy with this, but any fair minded person would have to find this repugnant to liberal values.

To be fair minded if you believe in anti vilification laws they should apply equally to everyone; we can bring back sedition (can’t vilify the government), we can ban vilification of political opponents, in fact any kind of vilification. Are we all happy with that? Is this the kind of Australia we want to live in, where we have to watch what we say, and anything we say could be arbitrarily deemed “vilification” on totally subjective criteria by a court or tribunal. The air of freedom is precious, and free speech is an important part of that, and should be defend at all costs.

In terms of government members having “free speech”, they must still be accountable. Otherwise a government member can stand in Parliament and say almost any type of nonsense if they are not censured or brought to account by the speaker, the opposition parties, or by members of their own party. Being brought to account by the voting public can of course take a very long time, so there has to be more immediate processes involved.

In the public area, I think that people can make statements they might not have wanted to say in retrospect, and a certain amount of tolerance becomes necessary. Words normally preceed actions and if statements are being repeated a number of times and they are blatantly threatening to someone else, or denying someone else their rights, then there must be some course of disciplinary action taken.

PC can be overdone to the extent that it acts as a barrier to communication. Right now I think the amount of PC in our speech is all we need, and no more is necessary.

My vote goes to Geoffrey.

Would you believe one could be arrested for telling lawyer jokes?

Don't laugh! It already happened.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lijoke124112175jan12,0,2936521.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines

All anti-P.C people are bigots. Why? Because, whenever they complain about P.C they are pushing an agenda loaded with prejudice - always. It's an old trick; pretend you're a victim of mythical enemies and equate your attacks with spiting that enemy, rather than you real intentions. Hitler was a master at this. Anti-P.C people are P.C too, but when anti-P.C people are P.C it means 'prejudicial correctness', "whatever my prejudice, I am correct." It's Orwellian that the author of the article mentions Newspeak when he himself engages in blatant omission and plays language tricks such as pretending that opposing hate speech, which leads to violence and attacks on the freedom of others, is just being "politically correct", something that should be derided as he connotes the terms.

The author would let Hitler off the hook, since he was only an authoritarian figure who incited racial hatred and gave spoken orders for others to harm people. He never personally engaged in violence. Using Mr Wallace's reasoning, Hitler isn't guilty or responsible for anything, just exercising free speech.

I'd like to make a correction. There are two types of complaints about P.C:
1. Trivial - which doesn't really involve a criticism of P.C, rather a humorous look at the eccentric actions of those wishing to avoid giving others offence or taking offence. Having a laugh at this stuff does not make you a bigot.
2. Serious - like the one in Jim Wallace's article. You are a bigot.

Just to inform those who might not have proper knowledge of what P.C is:
"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation." - Dictionary.com

Seeker, those men were arrested for breaching the peace, not lawyer jokes. This article is less misleading: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/270572p-231704c.html

paulx82 Making people in a queue outside a public building laugh by telling jokes is "breaching the peace"? Sounds like a joke itself, but the way things are going in the US and here, the joke will be on the community in general. We won't be game to open our mouths in case someone sues us or the VCAT gets a "vilification" complaint and sends us broke with legal costs. That's the PC agenda. Who gave them the authority to decide what's "correct" or "incorrect" They are arrogant. It's time to say "enough" right now and challenge this draconion law.

If the verses from the Qu'ran were accurately quoted by the Pastors, their comments could well have been true and reasonable. Just what WERE in the verses quoted? The Bible gets criticised [and misrepresented] often, but Christians don't run whining to the Government to prosecute someone. If Muslims think they have the goods, let them stand up and defend it by logic, not legal persecution of Christians.

Geoffrey you say that as a webmaster you could make a moral decision not to publish information such as child porn. But you cannot deny someone acccess to a resource as you would be discriminating against them and denying them their access to free speech. A web hosting company can't deny a company or individual access to their service because they don't agree with the content that would otherwise be legal. So would you be happy with being a webmaster and being forced by law to publish child porn in the name of free speech? Not me!

A few limitations on what people can say is required to keep some extreme members of our society in check. I don't know that I am fully supportive of this judgement but I do see some value in it. Would the Christian community react in a similar way if I went around preaching Christianitys support for slavery and environmental contempt (Leviticus 25:44, Genesis 1:28)? Maybe not to the courts but they would certainly react. Probably use the media to denounce such claims - a resource that minority groups do not have a similar level of access to.

Particularly with the current events re sept 11 Iraq etc. such misleading and hostile comments are only intended to incite hate, distrust, and encourage segregation amoungst Australian citizens based on their religion. And that is [self-censored] and wrong!

Political correctness can go too far, and already is in an increasing number of cases. But at the end of the day we are the ones responsible for it doing so. Remember laws are merely a representation of a majority of opinion.

Complete free speech - no, but limits on it should be limited.

Have a read of this link read it all the way through before passing judgement on Islam. Like the other big three it's all a matter of the context.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/April/30%20o/The%20Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Human%20Rights%20and%20the%20Quran%20By%20Omar%20Edaibat.htm

I favour the free speech model where the opportunity to use free speech is similar but get really concerned when Governments use it to villify sections of the community.

A classic is the villification of men in various Government publications regarding Domestic Violence. You might remember the recent "Violence against Women - Australia Says No" campaign which totally ignored violence against men and children. I recently came across the following gem on the Queensland Health web site http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

Read the definition and then think about the statistic - very unlikely. Few studies would support that rate even for physical violence let alone emotional or psychological.

Where is the right of reply when the Government uses tax dollars to villify groups (men in this case). Does not the publication of the above contribute to women feeling more afraid than they should and to men finding very little support when they are the victim.

Where are the pages which make an issue of the appaling rate of Child Abuse and Neglect in Single Female Parent Families (42% of all substantiated child abuse and neglect in Qld http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#). Is it not a form of villification when we are constantly exposed to coverage of child sexual abuse to the point where it appears there is an epidemic (6% of all substantaited child abuse and neglect in Qld) and yet no media attention is given to the 42% figure (Single Male Parent Families are only slightly better at 6% when the number of children in such households is considered).

Free speech is great provided that some mechanism exists for those with contrary views to get them across. Muslems can hold their own seminars and talk about Christian atrocities but how do you get a rebuttal on a Government Web Site or fund a campaign of television advertising when it is the government abusing it's power?

R0bert

I agree Robert, Domestic Violence studies are normally the most biased studies that Social Science undertakes. The results of these biased studies are then used by certain organisations to keep themselves in business, and continue their indoctrination and brainwashing of others, which then helps to keep themselves in business even further.

There is now almost no accountability in Social Science, and “Free Speech” in Social Science seems to mean that it can produce any type of result to any type of study it chooses to carry out (ie. “advocacy research” I believe it is called). You can almost buy a required result to be produced by a Social Scientist.

Big Al,
"Making people in a queue outside a public building laugh by telling jokes is "breaching the peace"?"
- Of course it's not, but telling jokes is not why the men were arrested. You seem to base the rest of what you say on this false proposition.

You have no clue what the "PC agenda" is at all. The is no "PC agenda".

"Who gave them the authority to decide what's 'correct' or 'incorrect' They are arrogant. It's time to say "enough" right now and challenge this draconion law."

Who is who and they? The mythical enemy? The communist Illuminati conspiracy?

Political correctness has always existed, since civilisation. Everyone engages in political correctness, even you. Tell me, when was the last time you called a black person the N word in public? Right - along time ago, if ever - you P.C hypocrite! Would you reprimand a child if they said the N word in public? Of course you would, you P.C Nazi!!!

Not really and quite the opposite of being a Nazi, you are just reprimanding the child for using ethically wrong language. Society as a whole determines what is 'ethically right' and 'ethically wrong'. If you haven't connected the dots already: what is politically correct is ethically correct, what is politically incorrect is ethically wrong. Hence, using derogatory terms that devalue other people solely because of their race, gender, religion, etc. are ethically wrong. I for one am glad that more people (and society) believe "all men [people] were created equal" and this is reflected in their communications with others. You might have a problem with this, but it's your prejudice, not anyone else's fault.

The anti-vilification laws are draconian because they protect the freedom of others, especially minorities?

It seems that those who want the right to whip up hatred - hatred which leads to violence - do not want to take any responsibility for that hatred and the violence it causes. Tough! The people have spoken, if you cause violence and attacks on the freedom of others, either through words or actions, you gotta pay.

I suggest everyone have a look at this:
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/043/Politically%20Correct%20Language%20and%20The%20'War%20on%20Terrorism'%20By%20Paul%20J.%20Piccard_043_14_.htm , just copy and paste into your browser.

I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Jim Wallace in this article.

Curb freedom of speech and you submit to the tyranny of some pre-ordained standard.

I would have supported David Irving and Malcolm X and every other half-wit being allowed to speak in Australia rather than being banned or denied a visa. These two individuals views are grossly offensive to me but that does not matter.

Freedom of Speech allows the Wise and the Idiot to be judged by the quality of their utterances.
Censorship represses the view of the Wise and the Idiot equally

If someone is a fool and pronounces their foolishness then let them and let society be thankful for the warning.

The point at which society needs to exercise intervention is not at "statement" but at "incitement".

Col Rouge

If I might backtrack a little, the argument about allowing instructions about how to make a bomb, and assisting pornography on the Internet is unconvincing. This is going beyond "freedom of speech" into the realm of irresponsible action. Regard for the Law against illegal explosives and public safety, Laws against child abuse; and also"common sense" would dictate that they were reckless irresponsible and against the Public Interest.

Re the lawyer jokes. If not the jokes, what were they arrested for?

I haven't used that "N" word since I was a kid saying "Eenny meeny miney mo" As soon as I knew that it was hurtful to black people, I never used it again. That wasn't P.C. That was merely good manners before I'd heard of PC. Why does PC go to such extremes as baning the word "Chairman" or "Chairwoman" in favour of "Chairperson"? In fact they hate to say the word "man" at all. They even dictate the colour of rubbish bins saying they insult certain people. They do have an agenda. It is aimed at changing the use of language to eradicate male terminology and other childish feminist rubbish.

Also undermining Christian traditions such as Christmas.

Had this case never taken place, few would have taken the trouble to investigate the Qu'ran and some of its more colourful verses, Now many of us who have done so are troubled by what we've read and will view Islam with more caution. The Vilification Law has been counter productive.

Where to start? This case is so riddled with misinformation...
Re DMAC's comment: "I find it incredibly misinformative that that opponents of this decision fail to mention that one of the two pastors/preachers argued that Muslims have a plan to take over Western democracy through violence and terror, and to replace it with repressive regimes; while the other argued that Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia."
NEITHER of the pastors said this. Thhis is a direct take from Waleed Aly's article, who is an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria.
The judge referred to 'statements made by Daniel Scot'. So the media and everyone else thinks he ACTUALLY said "Muslims are demons". (See BOAZ_David) But he DID NOT say that! He quoted from the Qur'an (Sura 72) where jinn (demons) came to Mohammed and became Muslims.
Such distortion of the TRUTH!!!!!
Why not read the transcript of the seminar? Terry Lane did - and his view of the decision is breathtaking! He says it is "riddled with errors".
Read his column at http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Shouting-out-for-freedom-of-speech/2005/01/01/1104345031333.html
The transcript of Daniel Scot's seminar is online on an English law website - read it at http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/interausae.pdf
That should keep everyone busy for a while - and maybe you will find the TRUTH - although that is NOT a defence under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act!
Jenny Stokes

Good one Jenny Stokes. Plenty of food for thought for paulx82, dmac and the rest! And how pathetic that "TRUTH is no defence" under this un-Australian legislation.
The old-time Labor leaders like Scullin, Curtin and Chifley would turn in their graves to see a Labor Government pass such a Law.