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).