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?