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!