I agree with Ben regarding religious vilification. The Victorian case and the inevitable guilty verdict was completely politically motivated. Justice Higgins, a Labour government stooge, was swapped in 2 days before the trial, and decided that vilification occurred because the audience laughed at the notion that Islam teaches that it is in an infidel's (that's you and me) best interests to be killed. Vilification also occurred because Pastor Scott read some of the not very pleasant sayings in the Koran. The judge also made things up in his published judgment (ie. he lied) in regard to what the defendants actually said (easily verifiable by checking the court transcript and tapes of the seminar), and therefore should be sacked and criminally prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice. But the great thing about this law is that it is administered by VCAT which means that - unlike REAL courts - a person cannot appeal on the basis of fact, only on the basis of law. But the main problem here - setting aside the corrupt Judge - is the law itself! It is just plain ridiculous, and should be repealed immediately. There is no justice in this decision. BTW, have these 2 pastors or anyone who attended their seminars gone out and started bashing, assaulting or threatening Muslims? If not, then how is it that these 2 pastors were found guilty?

Andrew K

The apple never falls far from the tree. So you base your wish to be able to abuse people on the fact that they can choose to hold those views or not?

Oh dear me Kenny. I wonder how long I will think it is profitable to interact with you, if you make a habit of attributing foul intentions to innocent bystanders as you just have with David - telling him "you base your wish to be able to abuse people...". Do you find that religious people and arguments tend to bring out the worst in you? Perhaps you should avoid the arguments, or learn to show good manners to the people.

Regarding the issue I tried to engage you on, apparently you don't recognise that, thanks to both the Rule of Law (which prevents Governments arbitrarily jailing their enemies), and the fact that most of those laws are pretty sensible, we enjoy a pretty wide-ranging right to free speech in Australia. That's a shame.

My comments that "we have managed very well" without "hate speech" legistlation was not a spectacularly brilliant one, I must admit, but was aimed at disparaging unnecessary and trumped-up innovations in the law.

Yes the judge was working for the great world Muslim police. You guys are starting to sound mad now. Ben P good manners really that’s the whole point the Pastor was not behaving very well, he holds the Muslim faith in contempt and was trying to undermine it and it’s followers. Yes this type of conversation can be hard as religion us fanatics yourselves are irrational people.

It is the nature of religious belief but you guys can’t admit it.

Would the Pastor in question hold a meeting about the evils of other Christian sects or the evils of Jewish faith and not expect those people to be upset. As to your comments about race or gender laws are you saying that we let women vote simple because they cann’t help being women, or we shouldn’t be able to call some one a nigger because they can’t stop being a nigger.

You only see the bad bit’s in the Quran and are blind to the same stuff in your own book. If it was the other way round you would be cheering, I don't think it would have even come up as a issue on this . You are not fighting for free speech your fighting for Christianity.

I’ll say it again we have never had the right to free speech we generally enjoy free speech but we have never had a right to it. Same as freedom of association.

It is a pity that Kenny is so ideologically driven, that he can't observe the facts in the case. This seminar was not aimed at the "evils "of Islam. It was to explain the concept of Jihad in Islam, something everyone had a right to know so soon after 9/11. It was next to compare the Koran and Bible as holy books, something of interest to Christians, and thirdly to show Christians how to reach out in love to Muslims - something the judge failed to acknowledge in his finding.

It is not the fault of the lecturers if the Koran and the concept of Jihad contain some pretty confronting material, and it is certainly not healty that exposure of that material be denied by law in a democratic country.

Two Bob

Kenny, politicians parliamentary privilege excuses the normal outbursts etc that happens in debate. We all know that politicians hardly restrain themselves outside of parliament either. But those pastors were found guilty by a politically correct judge for much less than what the pollies do.

It's true what Ben P wrote, 'the attempt to prove religious vilification really occurred will always be a subjective shambles'.