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