Excellent, Gary has hit the nail on the head in a very clear and insightful manner.

Exactly! Gary has eloquently hit the nail on the head!

Before you get so excited about how 'excellent' Gary is, just maybe you want to read the exact transcripts of the 'vilification' that was supposed to have taken place. Additionally, it is abolutely scurrilous of Gary to put words into people's mouths, as he does with this sentence: "Some Christians argue that they must be free to say what they think whenever and wherever they wish."

Treachery and disingenuity certainly has many faces....

Gary Bouma has completely missed the plot. If it OK to have a 'piss christ' then it is OK to have a 'piss mohammed'. And if it OK to suggest Jesus was a homosexual, then it is OK to suggest Mohammed was a homosexual. Christianity is regularly riduculed, but Christian groups do not run to the courts like the Islamic council has done. It makes me think, 'what have they got to hide?'.

Davo I think you have totally missed the point! I find nothing in the article referring to "piss christ" or "homosexuality". Perhaps we are reading completely different articles. Perhaps ter reason they dont run to court is because they actually don't have a case!

Davo you said christian groups don't go the the courts over things they don't like yes they do and they do it a lot. You keep bringing up the "Piss Christ" well guess what the Catholic Church attempted to have the artist held liable for "blasphemous libel" against the Christian faith.

Thankfully a rational article on the subject. There is no way that anyone could argue with the balance or ordered rational thought that went into this article, unless they want to take the, 'pick on a line and harp on about your own agenda' stance. Perhaps there is a small glimmer of hope for the future.

Regards

Jo

Jo, that is a strong statement, "There is no way that anyone could argue with the balance or ordered rational thought that went into this article, unless they want to take the, 'pick on a line and harp on about your own agenda' stance." I would like to demonstrate how that statement is, in fact, incorrect.

Basically, I would argue that the foundational assumption of the article is incorrect (or at the very least, highly debatable). That assumption is expressed at the beginning of the second paragraph (after the introductory paragraph), and says, "The language we use has power to define others, to demean, to build up, to question and condemn, or to welcome and engage." Gary uses this statement as the foundation of his argument. After all, libel and slander laws already protect everyone from libel and slander -- why do we need vilification laws on top of this? Because of a belief in the truth of this statement.

Just why would I disagree with this statement? The most important part of the statement is placed, no surprise here, at the beginning, "The language we use has power to define others..." This idea comes from a post-modern perspective, and is clearly erroneous. To give an example of where this simple statement is clearly wrong is very easy. If I say, "You are a lizard," that hardly defines you as a four-legged reptile, EXCEPT IN MY WORDS. If other people choose to unthinkingly accept my statements, that reflects poorly on them, not you. You don't suddenly need to bask in the sun in order to keep your blood warm.

But in a post-modern world, where there are no objective foundations on which to rest our arguments, name-calling becomes frighteningly powerful, because people have no way to test our statements, such as "You are a lizard," by any standard. The solution lies, not in attempting to outlaw certain forms of language, but in seeking foundations on which to ground our thinking and protect ourselves from being swayed by empty rhetoric. That is the reason why Christians needn't leap into litigation to protect themselves from statements like, "Christ grew up in a commune". We merely chuckle at the silliness of it.

And that is why Gary's conclusions are wrong, and why Christ could call the Pharisees of his day snakes and whitewashed tombs and then turn around and claim to be sinless. (And presumably why Gary thinks he never said this sort of thing.)

Thank you Gary.
No one has to be right and wrong....we're just different. And different is good. My beliefs are simply that - what i believe to be true. I would never be presumptuous enough to say they are right. But with the current knowledge and experience with life that I have, this is what I believe. I open to new information and am willing to change what I believe in if the evidence is enough to sway me.

Why can't people just accept others beliefs and rather than try and ridicule and criticise them (its a cowards way to build yourself up by putting others down). Why not learn about their beliefs and try to better understand.

I truly believe that the essence of all religions is to promote unity and harmony between everyone

Well if you're using your argument on language to say my sentiments about this article are incorrect I'd have to disagree with you. The power of language to define is only erroneous if you take it in its literal sense. A lizard is not always a four legged reptile, (? a lounge lizard). Whether you have language in a medieval, modern or post modern context the meaning of language is socially defined and has connotations beyond the literal meaning of the word. Is referring to someone as a witch a compliment, (powerful, a healer), or an insult, (evil)? The expression 'sex mad' is straight forward enough - but applied to a male it could be construed as a stud, and to a female a slut, (with all the other meanings negagtive and positive meanings associated with these words).

I don't know much about the law and legal definitions but I would take a punt on the theory that 'slander' and 'libel' have clearly defined legal definitions and a racial vilification law was needed because neither slander nor libel applied.

Regards

Jo

Jo , I'm not discussing the malleability of language, that's a different topic altogether. I'm discussing (and Gary was assuming), the malleability of people. Can we really be defined by what other people say about us? I think it's pretty clear that, no matter what "lizard" happens to mean in a particular context, calling someone one doesn't make them one.

Like you, I'm no legal expert, but from vague memories I believe that libel and slander laws have fairly strict definitions of deliberate mistruths that are intended to harm a person's reputation. Anti-vilification laws seem designed to bypass these restrictions (otherwise why would they exist?) based on the assumption that truth is no longer the only required yardstick in public discourse.

Why is truth no longer the only yardstick required? Because people have discarded it as a yardstick, or everyone has their own yardstick, so there can be no common agreement, so libel and slander laws no longer work. That's the assumption that Gary's argument and the anti-vilification laws are based on.

So how would you defend that assumption, in order to defend your statement that "There is no way that anyone could argue with the balance or ordered rational thought that went into this article..."?

Gary Bouma's article is flawed because it is not based on facts but on his own highly biased interpretations of the facts. He says, "those convicted were inciting Australians to be fearful of other Australians" yet he gives no evidence to support his statement. What in fact did those convicted do or say to "incite Australians to be fearful of other Australians"? Also is it fair for citizens to be punished for "reducing social cohesion" if we can't consistently and fairly measure "social cohesion"?

He also says that "Some Christians argue that they must be free to say what they think whenever and wherever they wish". Again, he asserts his opinion without any evidence whatsoever. Which particular people behave the way he describes? Or does Gary think that he is free to say whatever he likes about Christians whenever and wherever he wishes?

His facts are wrong and his logic is also wrong. He argues, "Australia and other nations have rules regulating competition among business groups ensuring fair play. I can see no reason why these should not also apply to religious groups." Yet there are clear reasons why laws relating to fair competition in business don't relate very well to competing religions, philosophies and belief systems. For one thing, is it possible to define an ideological monopoly? Most importantly, belief systems make competing claims to ultimate truth. Contrary to what Mr_Torch wrote above ("No one has to be right and wrong....we're just different. And different is good.") Christianity and Islam can't both be true because they make incompatible claims about so many things such as about God (Christian believe that Christ is God incarnate for example, Muslims vehemently deny it) and about history (the Koran's acccount of the events of ancient history are at odds with the Biblical record).

Gary's got it wrong. He complains about the alleged 'negative, hurtful, misleading and untrue comments made by representatives of a Christian group' as justification for Brack's anti-vilification act and yet says nothing about the vilification and lies of many politicians and even some academics. One wonders why Gary is so blind to the hypocricy of such a narrowly targeted Act. What's normal for our political leaders, academics, media etc, also should apply to the rest of society.

Muslim representatives have vilified Australia etc and I for one have never been so offended as to run to the courts. Having the strength of conviction that such outspoken Muslims are wrong and follow a false religion anyway is enough to keep me from being so offended as to cry foul. I can only conclude that the Muslims who were offended feel that their Allah needs to be protected by Victoria's courts. I'm sure there would be other Muslims who would disapprove of such a reaction that implies that Allah is weak and needs the protection of the court.

Gary seems to be a adherrant of politically correctness with it usual disdain for free speech and thought. Brack's Act only damages social harmony through it's hypocricy and injuctice. Free speech and fair debate would do more for society than an inquisition that imposes politically correct restrictions on religion whilst turning a blind eye to politicians and academics, etc.

Professor Bouma's article, presenting his argument by a Christian in support of the Victorian anti-vilification laws, is well worth reading for all who have an interest in the topic. However I fear he might have underestimated his audience in the section where he argues that we do not enjoy a significant legal right to Free Speech. Several sentences appear to be utterly unsupported by reality. Gary's comments are in quotation marks, with my responses afterwards.

"I am not free to yell “fire” in a cinema when there is no fire."

Yes you are, in the legal sense. Legally you are free to do that. Common sense may suggest to you that you would be in danger of being beaten up a bit later by disgruntled cinema patrons (illegally).

"I am not free to use disparaging and stereotyped language about gender and ethnic groups."

You are so, even now. You were largely legally free to do this until the anti-vilification laws came into force in Victoria, and I suspect you would still be free to do so in a number of circumstances - am I liable to prosection if I say that "all men are bastards", for example? Of course not.

"I am not free to say untrue and hurtful things about my neighbour."

In fact I have no doubt that Gary, being only human, has in fact done this quite often without being prosecuted, as we all have. You can get away with saying quite a lot of nasty things about people without being sued.

According to the moral law that as Christians we both attempt to live by, I agree that Professor Bouma and I are by and large not free to do the things he lists above. However to suggest that legally Australian citizens are not free to do most of them is untrue. Legal restrictions on free speech in this country are very limited indeed - many of us think this should continue to be so.

As he is somebody who originally trained in the intellectually formidible Dutch Reformed Christian tradition, I would expect to see Professor Bouma show more appreciation of the distinction between the legal and moral spheres.

Professor Bouma countinues -
"All societies and groups limit the range of speech that will be tolerated."

And some, like Saudi Arabia and North Korea, limit it a great deal more than others. Some of us still would like political and religious speech to be as free as possible, as has been the very splendid tradition in this country.

"Some Christians argue that they must be free to say what they think whenever and wherever they wish." Well, recently most of the argument that one "must be free to say what one thinks" went in defense of the murdered Dutch film maker Van Gogh, who was certainly not a Christian, and those who celebrated him as a "champion of free speech" (for offending Muslims, Jews and Christians) were mostly secularists hating any religion.

I think Gary is quite right. My only reservation is that I think that not only did the pastors go over the top somewhat, but the judge shows some poor reasoning (and some terrible English in his judgement), and the Islamic Council of Victoria also was somewhat less than unambiguous and candid.

I would rather a measure of revision of the law.

It is true, of course, that Christianity regularly is violified, especially those in the more conservative wing. Still, a minority group that is quite different from the mainstream is more likely to suffer from stereotypes.

Rowland W

Gary, u can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time !!! Your paragraphs listed below demand some scrutiny.

1) The language we use has power to define others, to demean, to build up, to question and condemn, or to welcome and engage.
Define ?? yes.. to 'show the true nature of" would be a reasonable application of this.
When the communists had a manifesto of 'overthowing the state by force' the country needed to KNOW about this. There are elements of the Socialist left who STILL preach and aim for this ! (see some web sites)
2)The language used by those who are convicted of vilification tends to be negative, pejorative and often inaccurate.
Re Para 2 "often innacurate" ? indeed.. but if they are 'accurate'.. how do u classify this ? You are insinuating that the Pastors actually made 'innaccurate' statements, yet you showed no example.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) In Victoria vilification has taken the form of ascribing to Muslims in Australia, patterns of belief and practice that may characterise Muslims elsewhere,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, as a sociologist, I think your effort here is a total disgrace. You have in no way looked at the issue of 'sub groups in minority, large minority and majority situations in terms of behavior change' as the size and power of a group grows !!
Patterns of Belief. <== did u actually READ Mark Durie's witness statement ?? can you REFUTE his research on the the content and material being taught to Muslim children in Australia, and how it DOES reflect the very belief systems the pastors alluded to ? Do u deliberately ignore the existence of groups of Muslims who have extremely radical agenda's in Australia ?
Practice <==== agreed, they tended to generalize too widely, but substantially they were correct. Bearing in mind that it is NEVER the 'moderates' who dictate the direction of any social movement..but the 'radicals', I find your assessment here an insult to my intelligence and that of other readers to this forum.
Intellectually dishonest, or just plain shabby !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) but for which not only is there no evidence,
5) but for which the evidence leads to quite the opposite conclusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Convoluted at best.. shallow, and uninformed. Perhaps even deliberately biased.
"No Evidence" !!!! clearly u did not read the Witness statements.. thats all I can say.
"Evidence of the opposite" ??????? Refer the line above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) In so doing, those convicted were inciting Australians to be fearful of other Australians, often their neighbours, thereby tearing the social fabric and reducing social cohesion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forget the warm fuzzies Gary, Pastor Scot escaped from a 'majority status' Islamic country barely with his LIFE. Pakistan- "our allies". Yasser Solomon's actions in this case are just a foretaste of where it will conceivably lead when they graduate from the 'small and powerless Medina' phase of Islam in Vic, to the 'Mecca' phase, when they have more power. (refer educational materials cited in Mark Durie's witness statement.)
The social fabric was RIPPED apart on the day that the ICV decided, along with the EOC, to send 3 'observers' at best.. spies at worst to use this pernicious act (in its current wording) as a tool of 'selective social control'. That was the day when the evangelical Christians of this country and also in the wider world, went justifiably one step closer to finding ways of limiting the advances of people who threaten the fabric 'as we have become accustomed to' and as our aboriginal fellow citizens 'now know' they have every right to do so in regard to 'newcomers'. The lunacy of the falacious idea that 'human nature' suddenly 'got religion' so to speak and decided to ignore 2000 yrs of social history, is well manifested in Dafur, Ivory Coast, Balkans, and East Timur, and an uncountable list of other places where the evidence is abundantly clear to all except those who 'will not see'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7) In a similar case in the Canadian province of Ontario a criminal conviction was imposed and sustained through subsequent appeals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29483 <== this one?
THAT case, resulted in the abject humiliation of the person concerned who as forced to have 'Islamic supervision and indoctrination' under an Imam who could at any moment send him off to jail !!!!! (if he criticized Mohammed or the religion) This punishment was in the form of 'putting the perpetrator into the hands of his victims' as IF... that is 'justice' in the normal sense of the state taking responsibility for punishment to avoid abusive REVENGE.

Finally, to quote the founder of the Islamic community in Victoria: from a radio interview held some time back. (taken from the published transcript)
Geraline Doog (ABC)
The ..... Holy Qu'ran (is) considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God and not open to interpretation.

Sheikh Fehmi Iman
Islam is the clear clean page which doesn't change. It didn't change in the past, is not changing now, it will not change in the future.

GARY BOUMA..... outright LIE, or 'uninformed' ?

you said....
"Why is it that some religious leaders, always a minority, but found within many religious groups, not just among Christian and Muslim hard-line groups insist on taking so unpalatable, unproductive and unsustainable an approach to what they call mission, evangelism, or outreach? Neither Jesus nor the Prophet Mohammed behaved in such a way"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lets look at that last sentence. "Neither Jesus OR the Prophet Mohammed behaved in such a way".... Are u serious Gary ????
Were u even IN the courtroom ? have you ever READ the Hadith ? (Muslim and Buhkari) ????

Lets take one example from the hadith of Muslim on "Book of Jihad"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
Chapter 1: REGARDING PERMISSION TO MAKE A RAID, WITHOUT AN ULTIMATUM, UPON THE DISBELIEVERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVITED TO ACCEPT ISLAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 019, Number 4292:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m". ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Chapter 2: APPOINTMENT OF THE LEADERS OF EXPEDITIONS BY THE IMAM AND HIS ADVICE TO THEM ON ETIQUETTES OF WAR AND RELATED MATTERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you SEE it Gary ??? "Gunboats at the heads"... Camels at the Gates.... 'IF" they accept.. dont fight them. or.. ETHNIC CLEANSING. or.. TAX them.

Now Gary... which part of this do u 'not get' ??????? It is the foundation of the military expansion of Islam from its own history !
HOW DARE you imply that Mohammed used 'Christlike' methods of 'mission'. -In the ONLY example of 'violence' recorded in regard to Christ and his disciples, he RESTRAINED Peter from defending him.
To speak of the Islamic and Christian approach to mission is of neccessity to speak of East and West. POLES APART.
I dont recall any reports of the Lord Jesus Christ 'cutting the hands and feet of some murderers, then gouging their eyes out, and leaving them bleeding to a slow and agonizing death on the rocky desert ground' .. DO U ? But I can give you chapter and verse for that one about the Prophet of Islam. As for 'how' people should feel about him ??? well thats their call on the basis of the facts.

Irrespective of the idiosyncracies of the Pentecostal church that you should as a sociologist and Anglican Minister be AWARE of (and thus interpret them in that light) Puh-lease, do not continue with your overtly biased and outright mistrepresentation of facts on social issues which effect many Victorians

ROWLAND W.
for your information, I feel much more inclined to respond positively to your style of comment.. which at least recognizes the same things as 'blind nellie' does.. but which apparently escape Gary Bouma and Judge Higgins :)
well done.
BOAZ

Bouma accuses the Pastors

"of ascribing to Muslims in Australia, patterns of belief and practice that may characterise Muslims elsewhere, but for which not only is there no evidence, but for which the evidence leads to quite the opposite conclusion".

However, I do not think that a reasonable person should have interpreted the seminar as ascribing extremist Muslim traits to (all) Muslims in Australia. Judge Higgins himself spontaneously commented mid hearing that the pastors encouraged Christians to love Muslims! And as for 'no evidence' re extreme Muslim views and re what the Qur'an says – the Muslim Lawyers fought hard to reject any evidence they didn't like and to ensure that everyone understood that "truth is not a defence". Is that VCAT style justice? Is truth now irrelevant?

But as for implying that the Pastors evidence re Muslim extremism was ascribed to all Australian Muslims rather than to a small minority - that is just ridiculous. Incidentally, none of the complainants attended the whole seminar they complained of - they did it in shifts so none of them had the complete picture.

The pastors described "true Muslims" as those who followed the example of the Prophet as recorded in the Qur'an and Hadiths. The snag is that many Muslims undoubtedly consider themselves to be true Muslims - but there are different practices in Islam, not all of which follow all aspects of the Prophet's character, behaviour and teaching. So it all boils down to a matter of opinion – which should have nothing to do with governments.

If "religious anti-vilification legislation is designed to promote fair play and healthy competition among religious groups" then it is a dismal failure.

Bouma implies "false advertising" and saying "misleading things about your competition’s products" and of "maligning the character of your competition". So if things were allegedly misleading, why the repeated refrain "truth is not a defence" concerning the less than desirable aspects of militant Islam and of their alleged relationship to certain passages in the Qur'an and Hadiths. Is Islam so unsure of itself that it can't tolerate public discussion of militant Islam and how it seeks to claim the authority of the Prophet, Qur'an and Hadiths?

The Pastors criticism was of militant Islam - not aimed at Australian Muslims - remember the Pastors urged Christian to love Muslims. Again, it's all opinion!

I was there when Bourma testified. And for most of the rest - when he was not there.

He was very impressive. Tall, dignified, cool, goatee, trim, trilby, trench coat, brolly.

Can't say I thought that of his evidence. Where the accused Pastors (OK Respondents - it was a 'Hearing' not a 'Trial') could quote from the Qur'an and Hadiths and the Bible off the top of their heads with ease, he admitted he couldn't do that with Bible or Qur'an. He said Australians preferred a low temperature religion (some would take that as religious vilification of mainstream Australian Christians as Jesus said that if we were neither hot not cold he would spew us out of his mouth - not exactly a low-temperature religion there).

Maybe someone can remind me whether it was Bouma or the Catholic Priest who admitted that he had not read the transcript of the seminar before he agreed to testify for the Muslims against the Christian Pastors. Whoever it was, the facts didn't seem to be relevant!

The Catholic guy who was a witness for the Muslims admitted that he couldn't quote the Bible or the Qur'an either. He had spent 40 years in Pakistan inter-faith-dialoging with Muslims – but couldn't point to converts and admitted that the other Christians in Pakistan wouldn't have anything to do with him.

Yet Judge Higgins accepted these guys as experts!

Hello Rowland W. -

I can see you're taking a characteristically level-headed approach to this subject.

Do I take it that you see nothing in this law, or in the mechanisms that enforce it, to constitute an unreasonable intrusion of the State into the religious sphere? When did States get the right to prescribe what religious bodies teach?

Viewed from the other side, are you confident that Christians who proclaim the historically orthodox doctrine that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father (and might go into the implications of this as regards other religions) in a charitable way, have nothing to fear from this law? If you are, is it possible that you are too sanguine about the good faith of the framers and operators of this law, who would view many Christians as "extremists" or "fundementalists"?

I'm sure you would agree that if a law of the state requires disowning Christ or his Gospel, Christians must remain faithful to Christ, and disobey the law. I take it then that you think that some of us are being unduly paranoid about this law?

warm regards,

Ben P.

It is a disgrace to the Labor Party that this draconion legislation was passed by a Labor Gvernment led by Steve Bracks. In past years, the Labor faithful loved to quote Voltaire who declared: " I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it".

Once they got in power, all that was put into a box called "tactics" from where it came in the first place.

This is an attack on freedom of speech, designed to cow the Christian community into silence on the question of the activities of Islam in Australia.

I challenge all thosewho support the Professor to read the evidence at the VCAT hearing, and then ask themselves "should anyone IN FAIRNESS be found guilty on this evidence?"

PERCY ... super big TICK for you bro... glad we have someone on this forum who was actually AT the hearing. Al.. appreciate ur comment too about 'tactics'.

by the way.. hearing is on again tomorrow.. not sure exactly when.. maybe around 10.00 .. u can ring the county court (civil listings) and find out.. I intend to be there. (It's to determine the sentencing date )

BOAZ

I forgot to mention that a leading Muslim, Amir Butler withdrew his support for the Vilification Act last June with a letter in the Melbourne "Age" [June 4 ] and an article on this site a few days after. He felt that the Act would be counter-productive. With the amount of resentment building, I think Mr. Butler might well be proven correct.

Are there any other net surfers out there who attended the hearing?

Dear Ben P

Yes, I do think there is a bit a paranoia about.
I don't really think this law restrains freedom of speech overmuch. While I am not entirely happy with it, since there is truth and error in religion and there must be freedom to discuss, debate anbd evangelise, I don't think the law is prescribing religious belief (although there were a couple of expressions in the judgement that looked that way), but requiring that there be fairness in representing the views of others. I do not think that evil is overcome by evil but by good, and I do not find that the Apostle Paul rubbished in outlandish ways the pagan religions in order to advance Christianity - eg Ephesus (did not blaspheme the goddess) and Athens (the very religious comment).

Regards,

Rowland Ward

PS Is everyone paranoid that they don't use there full name!!

Bouma's comment about Muhammad only going about spreading his faith in the nicest possible way is stupefying. How can an educated person say such a thing? Muhammad, the one who boasted that he had been 'victorious through terror', and this was his distinctive gift from Allah as a mark of his prophethood. Muhammad the one who, when attacking the peaceful Jews of Khaibar remarked that it was a grim day for those who have been warned. Muhammad who commanded his followers to invite people into Islam before attacking them. Muhammad who beheaded hundreds in retribution - except those who converted. How can Bouma's nonsense pass for information when the facts are so publicly available.

No Professor Bouma, part of the problem for the two pastors is that many of the things they said were true. The judge made this quite clear when he listed the offensive statements, a number of which taken from the Qur'an and Hadiths. The Act does NOT prohibit 'untrue' statements. It prohibits 'vilifying' statements, which can be true.

We live in an age where polite lies are legal, but offensive truths cannot freely be spoken.

eRR... ROLAND WARD ...

read this and u may see 'why' people are decidedly 'circumspect' about their identity

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38704.htm

Regards
BOAZ

GARY BOUMA .. 'ex' professor of sociology at Monash ? well if I have anything to do with it.. that WILL be the case.. I consider his remark about Mohammed in connection with mission, comparing him to Christ to be tantamount to a resignation letter for "lack of qualifications" he is clearly making 'scholarly' remarks in a serious forum which are baseless and unfounded ! Do we want our offspring and the future leaders of this state to be educated by such a shallow and incabable person ? He is either incapable OR.. deliberately biased and BOTH are outright dangerous if he is educationally producing clones of himself !

I'm writing to Monash now. and pointing his employer to this forum !!

Peace.. to the truthful :)
BOAZ

My dear Boaz-David,

I can think of few schemes with a lower likelihood of success, than yours of writing to Monash!

You've caught out Professor Bouma good and proper in a smarmy fib about Mohommed's tolerant approach to outreach. Kudos to you, but I don't see what good would come of writing to his employer about it.

warm regards,

Ben P

Rowland, I appreciated your reply.

When you write,

"I do not think that evil is overcome by evil but by good, and I do not find that the Apostle Paul rubbished in outlandish ways the pagan religions in order to advance Christianity - eg Ephesus (did not blaspheme the goddess) and Athens (the very religious comment)",

I agree with you. "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world" and all that.

I just can't come at the idea that the State is either capable of or legitimately resposible for regulating the Church's (or other religious bodies') speech. I'm pretty sure that our Presbyterian forebears (about whom you know a great deal more than me) would also have trouble with that notion! But I'm just repeating myself now...

good on you Ben, as heartfelt and warm as always.. and polite :)
My point about writing to his employer.. actually.. I wrote directly to him so far.. as per the biblical principle, pending his reply, if any, then to his employer. Failing that, to his church, failing that. to his bishop :) etc..
The point I'm making by doing that, is that it is simply 'irresponsible' to have such a qualification as his, and such a position, and to so contemptably and negligently abuse truth and thereby to attempt to influence a whole community with his views.
Ben, may I know a bit about you ? "asl" etc.. work type.. ?
BOAZ <===conservative evangelical protestant (brethren assemblies), self employed, electronics, 56 married 3 kids, kilsyth.

P.S. I thoroughly recommend mirc Dal net server and chanel #christiandebate for real time on line discussion of many similar issues, including interaction with a few 'token' muslims :)

Boaz-David,

I'd rather my posts spoke for themselves, than for this forum's readers to judge the worth of what I'm saying by my asl's.

But if you email me at lethalben"at"yahoo.com (replaceing "at" with @ of course) I'll fill you in for sure.

And please let us know if you get a reply from Gary!

A need to stop demonising Islam and get to the crux of the present global crisis.

On a recent Lateline programme an American commentator gave the real reason for the shocking human relations now existing between Christianity and Islam. It is not entirely religion. He did not mention the term “blowback” but the term itself was originated by the CIA who warned that their tactics against Middle East nations, and certain Third World countries could cause international friction in the future.

The above would not surprise anyone studying International Relations. As the US commentator pointed out, most Islamic terrorism has been carried out not by poor or destitute Muslims but by intellectuasl, including university students. Such was proven in 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings, and of course, every one knows bin Laden is well-educated and belongs to well respected Saudi-Arabian families. .

A public reaction could be, unfortuntely, that people desperately fed-up with news of Islamic attacks, would say either to close down our Humanities areas, or put the curriculums under surveillance, as was done in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

However, this would not get to the core of the problem, but only make it worse, because former students who had learnt in the universities about “blowback” and “payback” might also need to be quietened down with a warning.

As intimated by the American commentator - part of the answer could be for both America and Britain to get out of Middle East territory admitting they’d only been in there since WW1 mostly for oil and strategem. And if our Forum wants more evidence of American plans to overlord the globe, Muslims included, think about the pre-9/11 White House publicised New World Order as well as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Certainly not the way to maintain friendship between our world’s two largest religions.

George C - Bushbred