I agree with the sentiment of the article

You cannot have freedom of expression without freedom to express hate.

You cannot and willnot protect the world from any extremist behaviour of any sort by anti-vilification laws.

The point of social intervention should not be at the making of a hateful statement but at incitement to hateful acts.

Of course we are also talking about subjective assessment
was what someone said within or beyond the law?
what was the tone of voice?
were the hand jestures which accompanied the statement aggressive?
How much sarcasm was employed?

Finally

Freedom of expression allows the sage to display his wisdom and the fool to display his stupidity,
Censorship will invariably obscure the distinction
(and usually results in an arrogant fool being elevated to the role of censor)

Amir you got it wrong in the second line of your article
"Advocates of such a view would have us believe that if people are simply not allowed to speak hatefully, the hatred that underpins their speech will somehow evaporate and we can all welcome a new era of tolerance and understanding."

No we don't what we are saying is Poeple should not be allowed to publically express views which cause offence and incite hate. This will help stop these ideas from spreading.

Hitler started off just making a few speeches and writing a few articles.

We can have freedom to speak the truth as we understand it regards - say islam without hating islamics.Would I be indicted for vilification if I stated that not all terrorists are moslem but 99.9% of all terrorists are moslem. Further I ,sadly, do not trust moslems as a group when they have what they call a "hudna" or tactical truce. That is they can proclaim a cease fire - in all it's forms including a religious cease fire.Yet whilst we see it as a cease fire islamics see it as a 'hudna' or a tactical truce. Which of course means that when conditions change, when they are in a position of strength they can legally repudiate this cease fire.This hudna is deeply rooted in the islamic tradition.So when the time is ripe will Australian moslems insist on the savage, barbaric & brutal sharia law for this country? oops another court case or fatwa?

Moslems call me and mine unbelievers and/or heretics they can ridicule the Christian religion the virgin birth and Jesus Himself. That is see Him as a only a man and a prophet, should I say similar things about mohammed, though completely true they possibly would take me to court.Further if I stated that allah is, in my view, a pagan god and not the same Creator God we Christians worship perhaps another court case or even a fatwa. I do see this so-called vilification as slanted towards the minorities.Further more work needs to be done on this vilification law. Of course as many other Australians I see our courts and law as a total ass.A Qld judge set a known dangerous child molester free recently. Why? because in his eyes the State gov. was late in their paper work to keep this monster in jail.Yes this "learned judge?" even admitted that the man he set free could pose a threat to children, though he was sure that the Police could keep an eye on him.But that is another subject.Do not like pagan islam at all but do not and cannot hate moslems. Regards, numbat

I entirely agree with Amir when he states,

"... it is imperative to our pluralist society that all religions be able to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas."

What is so sad is that the Victorian ALP Government and those who pushed for this law don't share this foundational commitment to freedom.

Intellectually I agree with the poster but in practice allowing people to express negative views about another group in public appears to 'legitimise' other views in the community. I cite Pauline Hansens views as expressed prior to her election, regardless of their accuracy and intention. From hearing very little about the situation of Aboriginal people prior to her electioneering, suddenly all my acquaintances had views, usually rehashed rubbish from the media, innacuarate and unhelpful, but the speakers had managed to whip themselves up into a frenzy of indignantion about 'preferential treatment' for one of the most underpriveleged groups in our society, (and in case anyone wants to jump in and deny this, compare the death rates from preventable illness). I'm not for a second suggesting that my acquaintances were going to start fire bombing or violently abusing Aboriginal people because of the views they held but a small proportion of extremists could have had their anger 'legitimised' by this talk and decided to do something practical with their hate. Nor am I suggesting that not allowing extreme views in public will 'make them go away'. These people cannot be changed by reason or rational discussion but I think society has to be aware that they exist and not allow them to believe their actions are related to the feelings of the mainstream. There is still plenty of scope for rational and constructive discussion on difference in our society within these laws. The moderate people will be open to enlightenment from robust debate - the only people who will benefit from a free rein will be the extremists, of any persuasion.

Regards

Jo

So JoJo, in your ideal world Pauline Hanson would have been successfully prosecuted, and fined or imprisoned (and presumably not have been able to take her seat in Parliament) under Racial Anti-Vilification laws?

Wasn't it more fun for us all to watch her wither under the pressure of her own manifest inadaquacy?

Dear Amir Butler, could you please explain to me what "hate speech" entails? Is it the sort of speech that attacks or is condescending toward another group? If so, then I suppose this is hate speech: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them" - Qur'an 4:34. Or perhaps this: "'You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.' The women asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?' He said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence." - Hadith Muhammad v8, Bk 82, No. 794?

Or perhaps it is simply disagreeing with some other group, or denying their truth claims? Is that what hate speech is Mr Butler? If so, then aren't all Muslims also guilty of hate speech since they deny Christianity's (and atheists!) truth claims?

But what I find the most puzzling, Mr Butler, is why Muslims think hate speech is so evil but don't have a problem with what I call "hate actions". Hate actions, Mr Butler, are those actions where a person so dispises another's point of view and beliefs that they decide to murder or cause grievous bodily harm to that person. For example, Muslim "hate actors" murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and film-maker Theo van Gogh because they criticised aspects of Islam. Muslim "hate actors" flew planes into buildings on 9/11 and other were cheering in the streets when they heard what happened. In fact, Muslim "hate actors" are running around in Iraq at the moment killing Iraqis. In this respect, I would suggest that the two "Catch the Fire Ministries" pastors got off lightly. They are probably lucky to be alive.

You see, Mr Butler, hate speech is a non-issue. The real problem is hate actions. Please tell us what should be done about "hate actions"? How do we stop all these hate actions which seem to be always committed in the name of Islam and never in the name of Christ.

BTW, the more I learn about Islam and its teachings the more I am puzzled. Knowing what Islam is and what it teaches doesn't make me hate Muslims or ridicule them. Rather, it makes me pity them. Why would anyone - especially women - want to voluntarily convert to Islam? I don't hate - I just don't understand.

AK

It would seem that the author of the article and some of those who posted comments (a) were not present at the seminar, most of us were not present, BUT (b) did not have the decrency to read the details of what was ACTUALLY said by the Catch the Fire speakers. They did not express hatred of Muslims, no mention was made of rape and the other things expressed by one contributor.

As Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun noted, eight of the 13 reasons the judge listed in his summary of why he found the two pastors guilty of vilifying Muslims are actually quotes from the Qu'ran. In fact at one point in the hearing Daniel Scot was asked to justify his statement that the Qu'ran is harsh to women.As he did he was accused of further vilifying Islam with quotes from the Qu'ran!! He was ordered to refrain from quoting the Qu'ran in his response to avoid further vilification of Islam!!

Perhaps it is not the Law that is the ass,but the one who is supposed to represent it. Like many other things that we took for granted in this "land of the free", Freedom of Speech is another of the casualties of our politically correct society. Politically correct so far as the majority of citizens are concerned, but the minority groups, whether it be the gay lobby, the militant Islams or any one of a number of other groups are free to push their agendas, no matter how abhorrent they may be to the average citizen. Fairgo.

My apologies. It was not one of the contributors, but Amir Butler who wrote the nonsense about the Catch the Fire Ministries promoting rape, killing of Christians etc. Fairgo

"it is imperative to our pluralist society that all religions be able to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas"

Absolutely, and that's what anti-vilification laws enable.

It's a nice analogy - the marketplace - but any honest economist will tell you that there is no such thing as a 'free market', it's just a utopia. State intervention is needed to maintain a semblance of competition and to prevent monopolies, oligopolies and abuses of market power occurring.

"Advocates of such a view would have us believe that if people are simply not allowed to speak hatefully, the hatred that underpins their speech will somehow evaporate and we can all welcome a new era of tolerance and understanding."

This is really a misrepresentation - beneficial to your argument, but not the discussion. If people are not allowed to spread hatred (ideas of hatred) through hate speech in public places, then obviously less people will have been exposed to hatred and have it in their hearts. No one can stop hatred at its roots (actually we can, but that's another topic), but we can stop it from spreading. This is exactly the point of anti-vilification laws.

I suggest everyone read Gary Bouma's article on this same topic.

Mr Butler goes to on to make a number of misrepresentations of others' points of view on this topic and I won't deal with them all.

"social pressure is a far more effective mechanism for controlling such speech than law suits"

Is not possible that the law is the reflection of societal expectations of morality and indeed that it acts a form of social pressure?

I say yes, you seem to think it is remotely detached. If I wanted to run naked through city hall, I think the law would deter me - pressure me not to. Where do laws come from? Society. What is society? People and their interactions.

...... the whole article just has too many misrepresentations and strawman arguments for me to waste anymore time on. Ta ta.

Hate speech is so common and yet some like Amir and JoJo suggest that only their 'extremist' opponents are guilty of it. Fact is our politicians, academics, media and even within our social and family situations hate-speech enters debate.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation was a victim of excessive hate-speech. The loony-left in particular was leading the charge with it's lies, beating up elderly attendees at One Nation meetings and other attacks, including death threats etc. Personally I think fair debate could have avoided these 'hate actions'. Instead the one-sided hate-fest 'debate' seemed to spur the extremist Left to some violence.

One of the problems here is most of you are uninformed about theses issue, but it doesn't seem to stop you from ranting anyway. Aslan you said “How do we stop all these hate actions which seem to be always committed in the name of Islam and never in the name of Christ.” What a load of rubbish. Have a look at the UN web site for terror groups. They are many groups who are Christians and other religions our history is full of terror acts by Christians. I don’t remember the IRA being run by Muslims to name just one, was that timmy guy in the US a member of a right wing Christian militia.

I’ll say it again for all of you because you don’t seem to get it we have never had freedom of speech/expression in this country and nor should we. You guys can’t see pass your noses you quite happy with these laws when they protect you and they are evil when they protect someone you don’t like. The only western country anything close to free speech is the US, have a look at the number of hate crimes that happen over there do you want to emulate that? What not just move there! Fairgo I think that’s nothings further from your mind.

Good comment’s Paul82 but I think Gary’s piece would wash over most of these people.

I agree with most of Mr. Butler's article. The point is that religious ideas should be allowed to compete freely "in the market place". If anyone makes an outrageous or misleading statement, it can be challenged, and the speaker will have to "put up or shut up:. That's the Australian way, Not sending spies to take notebooks or concealed tape recorders, and then complaining to the State Government. The Christians [especially the Catholics] have been criticised, abused and generally hammered at every opportunity for the last several years. They don't run whining to the Government like a pack of wimps.

If people believe in their Faith, whatever it is, they should have the guts to defend and justify it in the public arena. This Law is un-Australian and makes hypocrites of the Labor Party who used to proclaim" I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." [Voltaire]

I agree with Amir Butler's sentiments. He is quite mistaken on one point, though. When he asserts that "Catch the Fire Ministries ... were able to state in public their view tha Muslims were planning to rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia" this was only even an imputation placed on what Catch the Fire had said by representatives of the Islamic Council of Victoria. I have read the offending materials, and this was not something they said.

In Daniel Scot's seminar there was a reference to rape but it was about Christians raping others (Scot didn't think this was a Good Thing).

How can we know the truth? Being able to debate freely would be a good start, as Butler says. Good on ya Amir.

Again I challege you to show us the law that gave us the right to free speech.
Big Al 30 brings up the Catholics and " Un-Australian acts get real Al.

Kenny, I can't show you the Law which guarantees "free speech" because it's an unwritten Law which makes Democracy so precious. It's an "understood thing" that people can speak their minds, and we should appreciate it and jealously guard it. We inherited it from English Common Law practice of 200 years ago.

So far as Christians [especially Catholics] being criticised and generally dumped on, I stand by what I said. We've taken a hell of a lot and survived. Other religions should be able to take criticism too without wimping.

How is your freedom of speech taken away - or, for that matter, given?

We are all free to say and do what we like. We are innately free. It is our intuitive sense that conformity is in some way important, that leads us to believe otherwise. Claiming that legislation (or anything similar) is stopping us, is rooted in a personal frustration that someone else (eg government) is looking to take advantage of our wish to belong to the collective.

The real issue for discussion is: what consequences should be imposed on the individual for doing, saying, or writing X, Y and Z? Such outcomes may include measures designed to restrain or deny freedom (eg locking you up in gaol), but this still does not take it away.

Kenny, you said many of the terror groups listed on the UN website are Christian. Really? Which ones? I couldn't actually find a list on the UN website but I did find various lists on the US, UK and Australian govt sites. Almost all of them were Islamic groups and none of them were Christian groups. BTW, the IRA is not a Christian group - they are political revolutionists.

In any case, you missed the point of what I was saying. What is hate speech? How does one define it? And why are we so preoccupied with hate speech instead of hate crimes - like the bunch of Islamic young men in Western Sydney who deliberately singled out white girls and raped them?

As far as freedom of speech goes, you claim that we do not have it and in fact never had it. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Given that laws are generally negative ie. they forbid particular conduct (eg. criminal and tort law etc) or regulate particular conduct (eg. contract law, IR law etc), you will need to show us how freedom of speech has been curtailed in our law (apart from the recently enacted RRT law, of course). Since you are the one making the claim you bear the burden of proof. Good luck. Free speech is a reasonable assumption and indeed, it is mentioned explicitly in the Preamble to the UN declaration of human rights, of which Australia is a signatory: "...the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people."

AK

Kenny is right. There is no law that gives us the right to free speech. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights where such a right might be provided in law, like in the USA for example. We could have ourselves a Bill of Rights if we wanted to, including the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to free assembly etc, but its just too scary for most politicians. Canada passed a Bill of Rights a few years ago, and its democracy is thriving as Canadians explore their rights under the law. The A.C.T. also now has a (very mild) Bill of Rights and the sky has not fallen in.

About a decade ago, The High Court found in the Constitution an "implied right of political communication", on the basis that we have a system of representative democracy that could not function properly if such an "implied right" did not exist. However, an "implied right" is a very fragile concept, appears to have a relatively narrow application, and could easily be overturned by a change of political persuasion on the bench.

Australia also has some of the most restrictive defamation laws in the western world, which serve mostly to protect the rich and powerful, including politicians, from criticism. Newspaper reporting on political corruption, for example, is constrained by these laws so that we are not kept properly informed. The USA has much less restrictive defamation laws, and as a consequence americans are able to hear more about what goes on behind closed doors. The documentary "Outfoxed" about Rupert Murdoch's right-wing political activities in the USA, which played last night on the ABC, probably could not have been made in Australia.

The Howard government has done nothing to standardise and relax our defamation laws despite acres of reports and recommendations suggesting they should. This is nothing but perverted self-interest. Remember how Jo Bjelke-Petersen used the defamation laws to smother any criticism of corruption in his government, and made enough money to subsidise his peanut farm, and Abbott and Costello forum shopping into the ACT so they could make an easy couple of hundred thousand dollars through the defamation laws? If you can afford the lawyers, you can make the money, and free speech is a joke. Disgraceful.

If you really believe in free speech, then you should be arguing for a federal Bill of Rights, and for reform of the defamation laws.

The same people who are making breathtaking arguments here that we don't have a right to free speech would almost certainly oppose much state censorship of offensive and obscene cultural material, and oppose it on free speech grounds.

I realise that my own side can look odd, when we argue for freedom of political and religious speech, but also support the sort of censorship I've just mentioned - but I believe that our position is rationally defensible. Freedom of Political and Religious Speech is a longstanding part of the Australian/British cultural heritage, and has clear public interest merits - whereas neither of these things are true of the widespread dissemination (so to speak) of sexually explicit and obscene cultural material.

Ben P, you say: "The same people who are making breathtaking arguments here that we don't have a right to free speech would almost certainly oppose much state censorship of offensive and obscene cultural material, and oppose it on free speech grounds."

It is very presumptuous of you to make such an assertion. How do you know this? In any case, you have managed to confuse the issue. We can all argue in support of free speech, in the absence of any explicit constitutional rights to free speech. We do this every day. But we may also differ on the extent to which censorship should infere with free speech. Some might argue that anything which offends religious sensitivities should be censored. Others might argue that anything that offends cultural sensititivies, whatever that might be, should be censored. And others might argue that censorship should only apply where real damage can be done to the innocent, such as in the case of paedophilia, for example. These are matters that we decide together through our parliaments, and there will always be disagreements about whether we have gone too far, or not far enough.

In the end it makes no difference whether you put it in capitals. "Freedom of Political and Religious Speech" might be a "longstanding part of the Australian/British cultural heritage" and it might have "clear public interest merits" but until it is a constitutional right that we all share, we can have no confidence that tomorrow we might not be able to speak freely at all, even about censorship

Great riposte, Grace - I enjoyed it. I admit presumptuousness. Obviously you do not fall into the group of people I was thinking of. I would say that almost everybody among my non-Christian peers (I'm 31) would be entirely opposed to state censorship on the grounds of obscenity (except in the cases of showing things that are actually against the law) - they have a "free speech" reflex on that issue. Your view is obviously more nuanced.

The very title of the issue under discussion is very annoying..

speaking as an evangelical. The word 'hate' is one that we are constantly seeking to rid ourselves of, personally and corporately.
Its not Christlike. (with the exception of rightous anger at various abuses... leading children astray, making 'money' out of religion)
But the idea of 'hate' speech applied to evangelicals is to misundersand our position. Fred Phelps who just about dances on the grave of the homosexual who was killed after one of his sermons, who went to the funeral at it preached against homosexuals, who set up a memorial on the grave saying "THIS many days since he went to hell" is not exactly what I would describe as an 'evangelical' We call that type 'hyper fundamentalist weirdo'. You can tell the type within the first few utterances they make. One has to have the same balance as Christ had, and showed, to qualify as a balanced Christian. Hate speech is not for us.

COL ROUGE
I totally agree with your post up the top.

JO !!!
valuable contribution about Aboriginals etc.. and the mention of Pauline. But the biggest problem with Hansen was the media. I can give u chapter and verse on the 'style' of media approach used. If I were Pauline and could identify anyone calling me a 'racist' I would sue them into the poor house.

If I heard 'Racist' said about her once I heard it a million times, yet her viewpoint was not 'racist' (get the dictionary) .. Her suggestion of non preferential treatment is a worthy one. Your suggestion that 'they are the underprivileged' with its associated assumption that more money or more handouts will 'fix' them is fallacious.

The Indigenous people need more than anything else a sense of dignity and perspective. They, as we, are all victims of history. The most we can probably do is symoblic rather than material, but I can assure you, symbolism is powerful stuff. When I walk down the chinatown area of Kuala Lumpur where just about every street name is Ali or Mohammed or Chong or Tan or something, suddenly I see a sign that says "JOHN WESLEY DRIVE".. it makes my jaw drop ! Suddenly.. u feel 'more valuable' (as a Christian).

The best thing we could do is employ a goodly number of anthropologists to do a serious study of Aboriginals in terms of my favorite illustration the Yir Yiront of cape York Peninsula. There are the grand total of 15 speakers of this language left. Nearly extinct. There were specific identifiable reasons for their decline, which could have been prevented. The same will apply for each aboriginal group in our cities and remote areas. Identify those reasons, and things CAN be done. Its not about money.

I might put up some sign on my place acknowledging the tribal history :) I must sus that one out

Grace, you obviously don't know too much about the law. A Bill of Rights is not necessary and in fact is the worst thing that could possibly happen. It would destroy democracy in Australia and effectively allow the courts to rule the land. Read James Allan's paper on Bills of Rights published in the Federal Law Review:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2002/20.html

In any case, we don't need a Bill of Rights telling us what we so obviously have a right to do. We have a right to go to the toilet don't we? (in a discrete manner of course) - yet we manage to exercise this right with out a Bill of Rights! See my comments in response to Kenny above. If you say we don't have free speech then show us where the law forbids it?

You mention the High Court finding implied rights but note that this could change if the bench changes its political persuasion. That's true - but don't you see that a Bill of Rights will be interpreted in exactly the same way - except that then the court will have unrestrained power to strike down any government legislation they feel violates whatever rights they "invent" regardless of what the voters think! Unlike members of parliament, we can't vote out judges. That fruitcake of judge [in]justice Kirby will go crazy! The problem is that Bills of Rights are never used to guarantee basic rights but are always used to FORCE a radical social agenda onto people that would never accept such an agenda. A liberal Court will find rights for any and every minority group and deny them to larger more reprsentative groups. This has happened in the US and in NZ and in every other country that has introduced Bills of Rights. i.e. Australia could possibly be run by 7 tyrants on the bench (or 4 tyrants really).

Regarding defamation laws, they are in place not to restrict freedom of speech but to regulate it. Defamation occurs when someone says something FALSE about another which reflects negatively on that person, their character and those who associate with them. Note that you are only guilty of defamation if you say something FALSE. ie. unlike the Victorian RRT legislation, TRUTH IS A DEFENCE. ie. the 2 Danny's could not and were not found guilty of defamation, beacuse what they said about Islam was demonstrably true.

The point is that one cannot just come out and make any serious accusations against a person. You must have evidence or proof. If you don't have evidence or proof you can approach your local MP and ask them to ask a question in question time. You can also exercise freedom of info legislation.

AK

Aslan, the loud expression of your personal opinion, together with some nasty sledging, does not substitute for reasoned debate. You should read a bit more about the law, so that you can argue from a better informed position. I suggest you start by accessing the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law on the internet and follow the Bill of Rights link.

You might believe that a Bill of Rights is not necessary in Australia, but that is no more than an expression of your personal opinion. And as I mentioned above, I smell fear and ignorance. Australia is one of the few remaining countries in the western world that lacks a full expression of citizens' rights in its constitution. Your view that a Bill of Rights would destroy democracy in Australia is just childish, unless you believe that the USA and Canada, for example, have destroyed their own democracies by codifying the rights of their citizens, in order to protect themselves from oppresssion by the state. A Bill of Rights would secure your individual freedoms, Aslan, not diminish them. And you would still be free to go the toilet.

I assume you are aware that the "implied right of political communication" was found in our constitution by a small margin of the Mason High Court (including Kirby J), widely regarded by the right-wing as a dangerously "activist" or "inventive" court. This suggests to me that you would prefer that we revert to a position where no such rights are available to us in law, and we rely solely on the "black letter" law as provided in the text of the constitution. That would mean less "free speech" not more, Aslan.

In fact the composition of the High Court is moving more to the right as Howard has now had the time to appoint new judges that better reflect his political persuasions. I mention in particular, Callinan and Heydon JJ, and the lack of any women on the bench now that Gaudron J has retired. You might well find that your dreams come true some time in the near future, and that the "implied right of political communication" is gradually rolled back in favour of a more restrictive interpretation of the constitution.

I understand you are dead against any court finding in the law the same rights for "minority groups" as are available to the rest of us. But again, this is an expression of your personal opinion, and is probably a minority opinion in itself. I think that most Australians would prefer that we are all equal before the law, including the aboriginal people, for example. Incidentally, if you want to see a Bill of Rights in action in Australia, then you should have a look at the Australian Capital Territory, and see whether the "tyrants" have destroyed democracy there.

Your capital letter description of defamation law does not add anything useful to what I said above. If you have a look, you will note that I mentioned the need not only to reform, but also to "standardise" the laws that operate differently in the states and territories. Why do you think I mentioned "forum shopping"? Perhaps you think that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy for defamation, but many do not. Public retraction and apology might be a better result, addressing the injury directly, and would probably relieve the courts of a substantial workload. Reform of defamation might also relax the burden of proof on journalists who are acting in the public interest, for example. I will leave you to read further on the issue of reforming defamation law, and in the meantime, I wish you well in relying on your local MP to expose political corruption and the FOI laws in finding out about the inner workings of the bureaucracy.

Grace,

I am not just loudly expressing my personal opinion. I provided a link to a detailed academic paper by an expert in the area that was published in a peer-reviewed academic law journal. In this paper the author (James Allan) demonstrated how New Zealand's Courts used the Bill of Rights to usurp power from the government and therefore the people, and why such a Bill is not necessary in Australia.

If you were too lazy to read this paper then that is your problem not mine.

And the link you gave me was pretty light on in serious discussion of the topic. Lots of assertions though. Although it did have a few links to some academic papers including another one by James Allan:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/SydLRev/2003/4.html
And this one from former Chief Justice Harry Gibbs:
http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume6/v6chap7.htm

Did you read these?

AK

BOAZ-David

Thank you for your acknowledgement / agreement

I was interessted mainly in the detail of another post of yours

"Fred Phelps who just about dances on the grave of the homosexual who was killed after one of his sermons, who went to the funeral at it preached against homosexuals, who set up a memorial on the grave saying "THIS many days since he went to hell" is not exactly what I would describe as an 'evangelical' We call that type 'hyper fundamentalist weirdo'. You can tell the type within the first few utterances they make. One has to have the same balance as Christ had, and showed, to qualify as a balanced Christian. Hate speech is not for us. "

I was unaware of this Phelps person but accepting your statements as you wrote, his behaviour is exactly what I mean, by allowing the stupid to declare themselves in their own words. Far better he express his true self and we can all see the stupidity of his ways than he be presumed a martyr to censorship and build a following by claiming some "credibility" from being repressed.

Aslan, I suggested that you have a look at the Gilbert + Tobin Public Law website, because you appear to be arguing your case from a very limited perspective on the law. I had hoped that you might address the arguments yourself, instead of indulging in some more personal sledging. You have now descended into the same defeatist tactic that is adopted by so many others on this website, of demanding that I read an ever more expanding list of sources that serve to confirm your prejudices, including Harry Gibbs (oh dear!). For every one paper arguing against a Bill of Rights that you produce, I could find another twenty. And another twenty that argue for a Bill of Rights. Stand on your own two legs, Aslan, and argue a reasoned position yourself, you gutless wonder.

If you're going to go around publicly inciting hatred against a group of people in society by deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs of the majority of that group, and at the same time act like a con artist by stating misleading self-aggrandizing things about yourself, the group and the public in general is going to have little respect for you and is going to object.

In this particular case it seems as if the potentially fatal consequences to innocent people (hate crimes) outweighed the generic free speech argument. We don't and have never had complete free speech, we choose the line to draw (censorship) in all public arenas for the overall good.

Grace... I don't know Harry Gibbs, but whats with the 'oh him' type quip in your response to Aslan? does he not fit your mould ?

GRACE....

"Aslan, the loud expression of your personal opinion, together with some nasty sledging, does not substitute for reasoned debate"

Nasty sledging ? I refer you to your unrestrained attack on me in the other topic :) 'she who is without sin..... chuck the first rock'

waddles off......

Ailix

"deliberately inciting hatred of another group"

was your post a reference to the CTF case referred to by Amir Butler ?

Please goto the court transcript and read for yourself.

http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/interausae.pdf

Or.. see my own post on the 'demonizing Islam' topic and see if u regard what I said as either 'truthful and factual' or.. 'inciting hatred' or.. the 2nd BECAUSE of the first. Or..'mistrepresenting' Islam ?

If u visit Jenny Stokes comment in 'Is this religious persecution' topic its also informative.
take care

Boaz, as you well know, you copped a slashing from me in another forum after you accused me of saying something weird about bestiality. When I pointed out that I had said nothing of the kind, you then apologised. Later you were also obliged to apologise for Pericles for misquoting him. At least you have the decency to know when an apology is due.

If you are referring to a further forum, where you intervened to provide me with another of your dreary lectures about feminism and the patriarchy, and then offered me another truckload of biblical references, then you got what you deserved, a measured response. If you were hurt by this, then you have thinner fur than I thought.

As for Aslan, I have done nothing more here than respond in kind. Not normally my way, but occasionally I get fed up with cheap abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate. I feel much the same about biblical references and carefully selected "further reading".

In any case, I think Aslan is some kind of special case. At times, his personal abuse verges on the pathological. You have seen him offer to go around to Pericles' home and pour boiling water over his head. Frankly, I think this goes beyond a joke, and I am disappointed to see you aligning yourself with this sort of behaviour.

And if you don't know who Harry Gibbs is, then google him Boaz.

Grace..... chill out will ya :)
don't u SEE my liberal use of smileys ? My goodness..
I align myself with Aslan in the sense of his main thrust, I dont agree with the cup of boiling water bit but I realize he was trying to make a point ..forcefully to a rather silly statement. We all say things we regret on reflection. Specially on forums where we often write 'from the hip' and we are back and forth between the 'what they said' window, while trying to make some sense of our own reply.
Aslan may have let his 'male'ness take over a tad too much in his imagery but thats no more reason to crucify him than for each of us to do so each time some other contributor blows his nose or something.
My comment on yours to which u refer was mean't in good humor.. sorry if I didn't scratch where ur itch.
Grace.. we are all here trying to get our points and messages across and indeed to learn from others. I've learnt heaps since being here. From you I've learn't about how to produce a well referenced footnoted piece of information, and also that with your occasional use of animal attritubes, u can be funny too, when u try. From Pericles I've learn't a way with words that truly impresses me. From Ozaware I've learn't how to reduce the size of posts :) We are also trying to enjoy people.. I hope. We make mistakes.. sheesh. Just because I express solidarity with Aslan, puh-lease don't see that as further evidence of 'them' and 'me' We ain't out ta get ya. I was tongue in cheek in that comment you referred to.

Grace, I'd like to know a bit about your background. It may help to understand more of your views. Is that going too far ? I mean.. kinda work, interests, state, political position. (you say ur leftish) I'm quite transparent myself, I'll answer any question u may like to ask.
The reason I say this, is that your post (more like broadside) about my fundy mates and limited web sites, was really an indication that u are categorizing me with little regard for the bigger picture, or the reality.

We dont always have to agree (any of us), but we can still have a 'caring disagreement'. Now.. u should find some more of that sun and enjoy it bit b4 ur next post :)

Grace... I googled Sir Harry .. I see why u might have issues with him.

Boaz, you have done it again: "you say you are leftish". No I haven't Boaz, this is a deduction you have made from my postings. It might or might not be the case, but it is really immaterial. I will however, intervene and object strenuously whenever you presume to (mis)represent me, be warned.

As for my personal affairs, they will remain personal, with one exception. I am not, never have been, and never will be a christian (or hindu, muslim etc). But then, you already know that don't you?

And yes, I do intend to enjoy some sun with my grandchildren this weekend, if I can find it through the clouds. Such extreme weather events...hope you and yours survived OK in Melbourne with that extraordinary dump of rain last week.

Boaz,
I'd be careful.

In the past Grace has identified herself with feminism, but now she wants to carry out "slashing". They seem to be combined.

You are right Timithy, I forgot to mention feminism. But that is only because its does not seem unusual to me, as I know it does for you and your friend Seeker. And yes, I do recall now, giving you a bit of a slashing for being a barefaced liar when you alleged, in three separate postings, a 50% gender difference in ALP voting. Have you found that reference yet?

Hi Grace,
I'd better be careful too, as now you want to start "slashing" me.

I was of course referring to the noted desire by so many feminists to carry out castration of males in some way. This has been universally noted by numerous people as it often floats to the surface in many discussions with feminists. I think you have proven it also.

Sufficient evidence has been provided that male support for the Labor party has declined considerably, and it has been provided for you.

As you now appear to be a potential male castrator, I feel no obligation to provide you with anything more.

AMAZING....GRACE :) how sweet the sound...

and you did it again.. picked out the ONE thing u can find fault with in my very conciliatory posting. grrr
You were said to be 'leftist' by other posters, and you did not deny it.. so.. surprise, I thought.... ok.. I shouldnt deduce.. just ask.

I always smile when someone so adamanatly says "I will never be a Christian" (or others).. GRACE.. if ever I have heard "famous last words" it is those. I think the likes of Malcolm Muggeridge, C.S.Lewis, and a whole trainload of others have said the same.. only to find themselves confronted by overwhelming truth and and undeniable calling into their hearts and ultimately humbly giving themselves to Christ as Lord and Saviour. The classic example is Paul. I seriously doubt if you have embarked on a genocidal campaign to exterminate Christians (although the mention of slicing does cause me some concern :) as Paul did, I dont think you have reached the pinnacle of learning as he had, nor I suppose would anyone describe you as an "Atheist of atheists" so to speak, as he was called "a Hebrew of the Hebrews". In Pauls case, it was not persuasion, it was not reading a book, it was not some dumb Christian like me "witnessing to him" it was an encounter with the Living resurrected Christ.
For one thing I am glad, in a way, that you are so adamant in your position :) its good to be sure of oneself. But then, I'm reminded of how many testimonies begin with those very words.

I have total faith in a living God, who is able to reach into the life of a Saudi Doctor, take him out of Islam, give him a dream of Jesus passing a Bible to him, and placing in his heart a hunger for truth, at the possible cost of his life, and to have the joy of embarking on a bible study with him of the gospel of Mark by email.
How much more a lovable granny who seems to have a totally wrong idea about Christians and Christ. Did you see my posting about Deborah.

And if me speaking like this is making you hopping mad :) dont worry I've already been punished. I was up at 3.00am digging my heart out along with my missus with mattock and spade and rake trying to open up drains to get rid of the 25mm or so of water flowing under our beds, through our whole 'residence'. I think my body has just today reached equalibrium.
But seriously though, thanx for the genuine expression of concern, I know it was real. Thanx for sharing that your a granny, even that helps a bit to know 'you'.

TIMKINS...
may I ask the same of you that I did of Grace ? a few tidbits of background ? Me..as follow:
Age 56
Married 3 kids. Wife malaysian
Self employed: elecronics stuff design and manufacture microprocessor controlled Speed controls for electric Vehicles, geyser scooters etc.
Education: Formal to 4th form, picked up a bit at night school.
Training: Radio and Electronics Technician. RAAF/RMIT
Bible college for 3 yrs.
Spent 8+ yrs as a missionary. (the all time greatest adventure and education of my whole life)
Location Kilsyth Vic
Political position: Issues focused with a centrist view of government vs Private.
Voting inclination: Most likely Families First.
Interests: (Besides work )Gym, walking, poetry (composing) and of course on line interaction.

Timithy, you should just admit you made up the "50%" canard, and move on. Shifting ground to a completely different assertion, about "less males", does not make up for repeating a complete untruth three times (so that it could not be construed as just a passing error). You were unchallenged until I came along. Them's the breaks. As for giving you a verbal slashing for being a unrepentent liar, and your segue of this little incident into your fear of castration by feminists, I can only remark what a vivid imagination you have, dear boy.

Boaz, let's clear the decks (and your drains). It was you who said I had "leftist" tendencies on a posting elsewhere, not anyone else. You have just quoted yourself, you muddle-headed wombat. And I have mentioned before elsewhere that I am a grandmother, you were not watching. As for deathbed conversions, dream on Boaz. But I probably do you owe you an apology, since you have been so decent in return, about the fundy websites. I think I now understand that you are not quite that rabid, just a tad obsessive. Smiley face.

And now that really is enough for me on this thread. Apologies to the author for all this tail-end personal stuff.

Grace..
I was actually quoting someone else, but I certainly did mention it.
but my quote... was not mine intentionally.
SMILEY FACE ??????????? truly amazing. !!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't u just FREAK out if I told you I had prayed for SIGN :) being a 'smiley from Grace on her next post'.. eh :) okok.. chill..I didn't so u can relax.

There, that should be enough question marks and exlamation marks to keep you going for a week at least. And I wasn't referring to death bed conversions. They happen anytime 'HE' chooses :)
see u in another topic. (apologies also to the author from me)

Boaz
Myself, I have basically been assigned to help expose the fraud of feminism as best I can. This includes their innate gender bias, their use of biased social science, their indoctrination of the young, their list of deceitful techniques they normally use, their use of spin and formula within their propaganda and media to brainwash others etc. Similar is being carried out in other countries.

In the past these feminists have been given free run to spread their lies and deceit and male vilification within the media, and this has not been challenged much. That era is now drawing to a close because it has become noticed that it is not a game, and it is having a very serious affect on many people including the young.

It is like a warning to various individuals and also to organisations such as universities, that if they don’t stop what they are doing then litigation will follow, and litigation and legal proceedings are now starting in a number of countries.

So, how does this affect “freedom of speech”. It shows that complete “freedom of speech” can lead to propaganda and brainwashing of others if it is not properly controlled, and it can also lead to malicious persons who want to “slash” others.

Dear Grace,

You said: "As for Aslan, I have done nothing more here than respond in kind. Not normally my way, but occasionally I get fed up with cheap abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate."

You have some nerve! Is calling me a "gutless wonder" and "pathological" your idea of responding in kind?

You said: "At times, [Aslan's] personal abuse verges on the pathological. You have seen him offer to go around to Pericles' home and pour boiling water over his head. Frankly, I think this goes beyond a joke..."

Personal abuse? The only thing I recall saying that could be possibly called "personal abuse" (and that is stretching it!) is when I noted that you clearly know nothing about the law.

And my offer to pour boiling water on Pericles' head was not meant literally but was clearly intended to demonstrate my point that reality is more than a linguistic construction.

Your whole approach and attitude to me and other conservative Christians appears to very hateful and condescending, and your comments lack any real substance anyway. I will ignore all of your posts from now on. They do not deserve responses.

AK

I just need to say that there is an extremely fine line between "the making of a hateful statement" and the "incitement to hateful acts". Wars are built on hate and greed.